Remember me
▼ Content

Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.



Page 2 of 3<123>
29-04-2022 03:58
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2719)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: ... that said there is a theory that all mutations are the result of evolving code as the end result of such mutations always seems to be positive and if the mutations were actually random then the results would be random
Incorrect. The theory states that all variations are random, that the detrimental variations decrease one's chances for survival and eliminate themselves through the non-survival they generate. On the other hand, the beneficial variations aid in survival and procreation and carry forward to the next generation.
Wrong because there is more than one theory.

Nope, there is only one "a theory that all mutations are the result of evolving code" of which you were speaking above.

I gave you Darwin's clarification.

Swan wrote:"We always thought of mutation as basically random across the genome," said Grey Monroe, PhD, an assistant professor in the University of California, Davis, department of plant sciences. "It turns out that mutation is very nonrandom and it's nonrandom in a way that benefits the plant.

Bozo Monroe doesn't get to butcher the theory with a "it turns out that ..." because it doesn't turn out that.

The bottom line is that the variations are not arbitrarily chosen; they are all, in fact, random. Variations all result from outside forces for which there is no control and no prior information.


Wrong again as there is literally always more than one theory, otherwise there would be a fact and no theory. Like the fact that your mother dropped you on purpose.

CIAO

Not the meaning of 'fact'. Try again.


Wrong again as there is literally always more than one theory, otherwise there would be a fact and no theory. Like the fact that your mother dropped you on purpose.

CIAO
29-04-2022 04:01
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2719)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: ... that said there is a theory that all mutations are the result of evolving code as the end result of such mutations always seems to be positive and if the mutations were actually random then the results would be random

Incorrect.

The theory states that all variations are random, that the detrimental variations decrease one's chances for survival and eliminate themselves through the non-survival they generate. On the other hand, the beneficial variations aid in survival and procreation and carry forward to the next generation.

Charles Darwin wrote (in Chapter VI of Origin of Species): Natural selection will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous. After the lapse of time, under changing conditions of life, if any part comes to be injurious, it will be modified; or if it be not so, the being will become extinct as myriads have become extinct.


Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.


Wrong because there is more than one theory.

"We always thought of mutation as basically random across the genome," said Grey Monroe, PhD, an assistant professor in the University of California, Davis, department of plant sciences. "It turns out that mutation is very nonrandom and it's nonrandom in a way that benefits the plant.

https://www.genengnews.com/news/are-genetic-mutations-really-random-new-findings-suggest-not/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20always%20thought%20of%20mutation,way%20that%20benefits%20the%20plant.


Californication of science, by an assistant, not even actual professor... Think Sealover is from California too...

Mutations are random, not planned, or pick and choose. Very common, but seldom survive, to be passed on to future generations. Not all mutations are obvious, or even expressed, until later generations. There is no restrictions on the number of mutations to a critter's DNA either. Doesn't have to be one at a time, seldom is either. Researchers tend to have a narrow focus, and only look a specific details, ignoring the entire.


How is it then that the mutations that seem to be random always improve the species in the long run? That is not random, can't be

Define 'improve'. Just because YOU see an 'improvement' doesn't mean someone else does.


Actually everyone who believes in Darwinism agrees that evolution creates better suited or improved to their environment organisms. If mutations were truly random the good and the bad would balance out leaving no change, yet in every instance organism's improve, disproving random mutations
RE: "Lay off the LSD" - Which is a 5HT (serotonin) antagonist.29-04-2022 05:54
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
"Lay off the LSD" - Which is a 5HT (serotonin) antagonist.

Insights into the nature of human consciousness can be gained through study of neuro pharmacology.

Nerve cells communicate with each other by sending neurotransmitters across a synapse to the other. Messages can be sent in only one direction at a synapse between any two nerve cells.

It is widely accepted that LSD has the pharmacological capacity to alter consciousness. It is also an opportunity to preview a bit of the neuro pharmacology to be included in what will be a long running thread.

LSD is a 5 hydroxy triptamine (5HT), also known as serotonin, antagonist.

How might that account for the manner in which it alters consciousness?

Start by knowing what serotonin (5HT) does as a neurotransmitter.

A neurotransmitter can do one of two things after it crosses the synapse and attaches to the binding site of the target nerve cell.

Some neurotransmitters are excitatory. They tell the other nerve to get more active and send more signals.

Other neurotransmitters are inhibitory. They tell the other nerve to calm down and take the signals down a notch.

Serotonin is inhibitory. Serotonin is used to quell the action within the network.

As soon as the signal gets sent, the nerve cell that put out the 5HT sucks back up excess serotonin still left out in the synapse.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are antidepressant pharmaceuticals that diminish the reuptake of serotonin from the synapses.

LSD is a different kind of pharmaceutical.

LSD is a serotonin antagonist.

LDD is a perfect fit for the serotonin binding site on the receiving end of a synapse.

Foreign chemicals that are capable of fitting perfectly into the receptor site on the other side of a synapse are either agonists or antagonist.

An agonist actually stimulates the receptor site, telling the other nerve to either get excited or calm down, depending on the neurotransmitter.

If LSD were a serotonin AGONIST, it would be continuously telling the next nerve to calm down.

As a serotonin ANTAGONIST, LSD prevents the other nerve from ever getting the message to calm down.

Our bodies don't have an enzyme to get the LSD off the synaptic binding site, as we do for serotonin, so LSD stays there for hours and hours.

Preventing the receiving nerve from getting the message to calm down.

FOR SIXTEEN FREAKING HOURS, HOLY SHIT...

So, lay of the LSD, people!


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

Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.

To understand how we can use the technology of applied biogeochemistry to address climate change and ocean "acidification", it is useful to understand a few things about evolutionary biology.

Bacteria once used transformation of carbon dioxide into methane to create an atmosphere in which methane was present at double digit percentage (parts per hundred) concentrations, rather than the 1.7 parts per MILLION that it is today.

Bacteria today can transform methane into carbon dioxide, reducing the global warming potential of the greenhouse gas twenty fold.

The evolution of endosymbiosis, such as the mitochondria that allow an otherwise anaerobic organism to utilize oxygen as oxidant, can be applied as technology for organisms to combine their efforts in symbiosis to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

Understanding of evolutionary biology can help us understand how to be better stewards of the Earth.

It can also help us understand ourselves and what we really are.

The endosymbiotic theory of consciousness.

Every human body is a pair of conjoined twins, each twin having its own separate brain.

One twin lives entirely inside of the other. Distinct tissue types.

One twin has striated muscle tissue, controlled by the cerebrum. The skeletal muscles are under conscious control by the twin with the 5 senses to interact with the outside world. These muscles use a different neurotransmitter than the other brain to be sure the signals never get crossed.

The other twin has smooth muscle tissue, controlled by the brain stem. The smooth muscles are under unconscious control by the twin with the 200 senses to interact with the inside world. These muscles use a different neurotransmitter than the other brain to be sure the signals never get crossed.

One twin controls the central nervous system with its cerebral brain. This runs down the middle of the spine.

One twin controls the autonomic nervous system with its brainstem. This runs down two parallel tracks away from the spine, deeper in the body. Use of different neurotransmitters prevents them from accidentally interfering with each other.

But aren't conjoined twins IDENTICAL?

They are genetically identical. Identical genotypes. They are expressed in radically different phenotypes. Phenotypic plasticity at the earliest phase of embryonic development led to very different body types as they one grew inside the other. Distinct tissue types extended out and grew around each other.

Tony was a scientific genius who made his first brilliant discovery at age 17.

He was too smart for high school so they had him take classes at local college.

The class was neurobiology.

Tony remembered the time they first forced him to eat liver.

It tasted like POISON!

It was probably the only time they ever had to fight with him to get him to eat something.

That shit tasted so godawful bad, and they weren't going to let him get away without punishment unless he ate more of it.

After many tears and much conflict, only half of the piece of liver remained on the plate. And it tasted horrible the whole time.

The next morning Tony woke up with a CRAVING for liver.

He happily requested that liver please be prepared again.

Parents were still pissed about the night before and thought it was mockery.

Tony REALLY WANTED to eat liver again. He loved it for the rest of his life.

Tony also remembered the time he stole the box of artificially flavored crackers.

It arrived in the mail as a free sample, and he snuck off with it before anyone else knew it was there.

Those crackers were DELICIOUS! SO GOOD! Tony ate the whole box.

The next morning Tony was still feeling a little sick.

Just remembering the taste of those crackers was almost enough to make him vomit. He would never ever ever eat anything that tasted at all like that again.

Using what he just learned about neurobiology, Tony figured out what happened.

The taste buds in his mouth provided information to one of his two brains.

The taste buds in his stomach provided information to the other brain.

Just from that taste in the mouth, liver was foreign and weird and full of something different than he was used to.

It didn't take long for the taste buds in his stomach to tell his brainstem that something REALLY GOOD had come in. Tell the cerebrum that whatever this stuff is, go find more of it.

Just from the taste buds in his mouth, the crackers were DELICIOUS. They were triggering all the right sensations.

It didn't take long for the taste buds in his stomach to tell his brainstem that something REALLY BAD had come in. Maybe it was just the MSG or one of those other polysyllabic ingredients on the list. Tell the cerebrum that whatever this stuff is, never eat anything like it again.

Tony went on to find more information. Even the immune system was a pair of dimorphic conjoined twins. Sometimes one would attack the tissues of the other, thinking that it was defending itself.

In part, this thread is where the connection between evolutionary biology and technology to address global environmental change can be discussed.

It can also be a place to have fun with other ideas related to evolutionary biology.

And wait until you learn about Tony's OTHER big discovery, when he was much older.

Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.

Evolutionary Biology

Lay off the LSD
RE: Wiggle, wiggle, little fluke. How I wonder what you took.29-04-2022 06:09
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
Wiggle, wiggle, little fluke. How I wonder what you took.

Liver flukes are interesting little parasites.

Uniquely endowed with the ability to operate a complex nervous system under conditions of anaerobic metabolism.

A complex enough nervous system to prove that LSD is a serotonin antagonist.

A classic retort on this website would be"

"How do you know. Were you there?"

Actually, I WAS there.

Wiggle, wiggle, little fluke. How I wonder what you took.

Those guys wiggle a whole lot more when they be trippin' on acid.

I saw it with my own lying eyes!

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

[quote]sealover wrote:
"Lay off the LSD" - Which is a 5HT (serotonin) antagonist.

Insights into the nature of human consciousness can be gained through study of neuro pharmacology.

Nerve cells communicate with each other by sending neurotransmitters across a synapse to the other. Messages can be sent in only one direction at a synapse between any two nerve cells.

It is widely accepted that LSD has the pharmacological capacity to alter consciousness. It is also an opportunity to preview a bit of the neuro pharmacology to be included in what will be a long running thread.

LSD is a 5 hydroxy triptamine (5HT), also known as serotonin, antagonist.

How might that account for the manner in which it alters consciousness?

Start by knowing what serotonin (5HT) does as a neurotransmitter.

A neurotransmitter can do one of two things after it crosses the synapse and attaches to the binding site of the target nerve cell.

Some neurotransmitters are excitatory. They tell the other nerve to get more active and send more signals.

Other neurotransmitters are inhibitory. They tell the other nerve to calm down and take the signals down a notch.

Serotonin is inhibitory. Serotonin is used to quell the action within the network.

As soon as the signal gets sent, the nerve cell that put out the 5HT sucks back up excess serotonin still left out in the synapse.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are antidepressant pharmaceuticals that diminish the reuptake of serotonin from the synapses.

LSD is a different kind of pharmaceutical.

LSD is a serotonin antagonist.

LDD is a perfect fit for the serotonin binding site on the receiving end of a synapse.

Foreign chemicals that are capable of fitting perfectly into the receptor site on the other side of a synapse are either agonists or antagonist.

An agonist actually stimulates the receptor site, telling the other nerve to either get excited or calm down, depending on the neurotransmitter.

If LSD were a serotonin AGONIST, it would be continuously telling the next nerve to calm down.

As a serotonin ANTAGONIST, LSD prevents the other nerve from ever getting the message to calm down.

Our bodies don't have an enzyme to get the LSD off the synaptic binding site, as we do for serotonin, so LSD stays there for hours and hours.

Preventing the receiving nerve from getting the message to calm down.

FOR SIXTEEN FREAKING HOURS, HOLY SHIT...

So, lay of the LSD, people!
29-04-2022 06:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12983)
Swan wrote:Actually everyone who believes in Darwinism agrees

This is a pretty bold assertion ... that isn't true.

I, for one, accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, and I understand it very well. One thing I can tell you is that you do not understand it well and that no "Darwinist" has your take, because it's not correct.


Swan wrote: If mutations were truly random the good and the bad would balance out leaving no change,

Incorrect, and rather silly.

For some reason, you believe that a detrimental gene that causes an organism to die, will nonetheless effectively pass on to future generations. How can a dead organism procreate and pass on its genes?

Similarly, a beneficial gene that affords an organism a statistical advantage in survival and procreation will, by definition, pass along to future generations more effectively.

It doesn't balance out. The beneficial attributes promulgate while the detrimental attributes get themselves killed off.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
29-04-2022 12:57
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2719)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually everyone who believes in Darwinism agrees

This is a pretty bold assertion ... that isn't true.

I, for one, accept Darwin's theory of natural selection, and I understand it very well. One thing I can tell you is that you do not understand it well and that no "Darwinist" has your take, because it's not correct.


Swan wrote: If mutations were truly random the good and the bad would balance out leaving no change,

Incorrect, and rather silly.

For some reason, you believe that a detrimental gene that causes an organism to die, will nonetheless effectively pass on to future generations. How can a dead organism procreate and pass on its genes?

Similarly, a beneficial gene that affords an organism a statistical advantage in survival and procreation will, by definition, pass along to future generations more effectively.

It doesn't balance out. The beneficial attributes promulgate while the detrimental attributes get themselves killed off.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.


LOL so you believe that you crawled out of a slimy lake like Darwin said?

My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Ok kiddy, in your little mind salts write DNA

Take your pills now
29-04-2022 14:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12983)
Swan wrote:LOL so you believe that you crawled out of a slimy lake like Darwin said?

Charles Darwin did not make that claim. You should read The Origin of Species

Swan wrote:... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

It was not often said by Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin merely stipulated that life began at some point. You nonetheless disagree?
29-04-2022 16:24
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2719)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL so you believe that you crawled out of a slimy lake like Darwin said?

Charles Darwin did not make that claim. You should read The Origin of Species

Swan wrote:... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

It was not often said by Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin merely stipulated that life began at some point. You nonetheless disagree?


Actually this is a direct letter from Darwin to Hooker.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

So you keep babbling retard

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/did-life-evolve-in-a-warm-little-pond/
29-04-2022 17:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12983)
Swan wrote:Actually this is a direct letter from Darwin to Hooker.

"But if (and oh what a big if)

So let's return to discussing your lack of English comprehension. At least now you know why your SAT score was so low.

When someone opens with "But if (and oh what a big if) ", he is engaging in a theoretical subjunctive and is NOT making any sort of affirmative argument.

Darwin was a fundamentalist Christian who was NOT keen on any sort of abiogenesis theory that deviated from "God did it."


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-04-2022 17:15
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2719)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually this is a direct letter from Darwin to Hooker.

"But if (and oh what a big if)

So let's return to discussing your lack of English comprehension. At least now you know why your SAT score was so low.

When someone opens with "But if (and oh what a big if) ", he is engaging in a theoretical subjunctive and is NOT making any sort of affirmative argument.

Darwin was a fundamentalist Christian who was NOT keen on any sort of abiogenesis theory that deviated from "God did it."


.


Actually this is a direct letter from Darwin to Hooker.

"But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes [..] "
~Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Hooker (1871)

So you keep babbling retard


Furthermore this letter was the subject of many famous and all failed experiments, the Miller Uray project as I recall.

All said Darwin's letter is quite correct, as long as the etcetera is God
29-04-2022 17:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12983)
Swan wrote:Actually this is a direct letter from Darwin to Hooker.

Yes, it directly contradicts your assertion of Darwin's position.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-04-2022 19:59
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2719)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually this is a direct letter from Darwin to Hooker.

Yes, it directly contradicts your assertion of Darwin's position.


LOL the fact is that Darwin said that life created itself and there is nothing you can do about it. Darwin also wrote

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes
In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.


Next simpleton reply
29-04-2022 20:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12983)
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that Darwin said that life created itself

Nope.

Darwin did not speculate as to how life began beyond the Christian God. His only premise was that life came into existence at some point.

The quote you presented shows that Darwin had a strong distaste for the idea of life just spontaneously generating from a puddle of mineral soup.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: "Origin of Species", NOT Origin of Life29-04-2022 21:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
"Origin of Species", NOT Origin of Life.

Charles Darwin once filled a book with meaningless gibber babble buzzwords that cannot be discussed until I'm satisfied with your unambiguous definition for them.

That was an inside joke.

The famous book title does not claim to address the origin of life.

One idea is that the very first DNA based life of this kind started RIGHT HERE on earth, without outside intervention, divine or otherwise.

Many clay mineral surfaces, such as (oxy)hydroxides of iron, aluminum, or manganese, can bind phosphate at regular repeating intervals.

Phosphate is a perfect fit for the anion exchange sites on the clay mineral surface.

The distance between anion exchange sites on the mineral surface is a perfect for the distance between phosphate groups on nucleic acids.

So the idea is that with the phosphates all lined up at the perfect spacing on a clay mineral surface, the other nucleic acid components could have attached to it as ligands, then lined up at perfect spacing to form a nucleic acid.

There was no oxygen in the air or water, and almost no chemical oxidants present.

Organic compound components of nucleic acids, proteins, etc., formed by spontaneous processes would have a long residence time in solution.

Nothing to eat or rot them biologically. Nothing to oxidize them chemically.

They could have accumulated to high concentration in the primordial soup.

And with a clay mineral surface to line up the phosphorus at the right spacing, and plenty of time for the other nucleic acid components to bind to them in a linear structure...

It's not impossible for life to have started right here on Earth.

4000 million years ago.

It's not impossible for those same processes to have occurred on another distant planet, creating DNA based life.

Maybe 8000 million years ago.

And then 4000 million years ago they seeded life on Earth.

And maybe now its our turn to seed life on other planets.

Anyway, my favorite theory is that life began in the clay or on the clay surface.

There is another famous book, not by Darwin, that DOES explicitly address the origin of LIFE rather than the origin of species.

Something about life coming out of the clay.

"Origin of Species", NOT Origin of Life.
29-04-2022 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19786)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: ... that said there is a theory that all mutations are the result of evolving code as the end result of such mutations always seems to be positive and if the mutations were actually random then the results would be random
Incorrect. The theory states that all variations are random, that the detrimental variations decrease one's chances for survival and eliminate themselves through the non-survival they generate. On the other hand, the beneficial variations aid in survival and procreation and carry forward to the next generation.
Wrong because there is more than one theory.

Nope, there is only one "a theory that all mutations are the result of evolving code" of which you were speaking above.

I gave you Darwin's clarification.

Swan wrote:"We always thought of mutation as basically random across the genome," said Grey Monroe, PhD, an assistant professor in the University of California, Davis, department of plant sciences. "It turns out that mutation is very nonrandom and it's nonrandom in a way that benefits the plant.

Bozo Monroe doesn't get to butcher the theory with a "it turns out that ..." because it doesn't turn out that.

The bottom line is that the variations are not arbitrarily chosen; they are all, in fact, random. Variations all result from outside forces for which there is no control and no prior information.


Wrong again as there is literally always more than one theory, otherwise there would be a fact and no theory. Like the fact that your mother dropped you on purpose.

CIAO

Not the meaning of 'fact'. Try again.


Wrong again as there is literally always more than one theory, otherwise there would be a fact and no theory. Like the fact that your mother dropped you on purpose.

CIAO

Not the meaning of 'fact'. Try again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2022 22:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19786)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: ... that said there is a theory that all mutations are the result of evolving code as the end result of such mutations always seems to be positive and if the mutations were actually random then the results would be random

Incorrect.

The theory states that all variations are random, that the detrimental variations decrease one's chances for survival and eliminate themselves through the non-survival they generate. On the other hand, the beneficial variations aid in survival and procreation and carry forward to the next generation.

Charles Darwin wrote (in Chapter VI of Origin of Species): Natural selection will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous. After the lapse of time, under changing conditions of life, if any part comes to be injurious, it will be modified; or if it be not so, the being will become extinct as myriads have become extinct.


Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.


Wrong because there is more than one theory.

"We always thought of mutation as basically random across the genome," said Grey Monroe, PhD, an assistant professor in the University of California, Davis, department of plant sciences. "It turns out that mutation is very nonrandom and it's nonrandom in a way that benefits the plant.

https://www.genengnews.com/news/are-genetic-mutations-really-random-new-findings-suggest-not/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20always%20thought%20of%20mutation,way%20that%20benefits%20the%20plant.


Californication of science, by an assistant, not even actual professor... Think Sealover is from California too...

Mutations are random, not planned, or pick and choose. Very common, but seldom survive, to be passed on to future generations. Not all mutations are obvious, or even expressed, until later generations. There is no restrictions on the number of mutations to a critter's DNA either. Doesn't have to be one at a time, seldom is either. Researchers tend to have a narrow focus, and only look a specific details, ignoring the entire.


How is it then that the mutations that seem to be random always improve the species in the long run? That is not random, can't be

Define 'improve'. Just because YOU see an 'improvement' doesn't mean someone else does.


Actually everyone who believes in Darwinism agrees that evolution creates better suited or improved to their environment organisms. If mutations were truly random the good and the bad would balance out leaving no change, yet in every instance organism's improve, disproving random mutations

Not the attempted Theory of Natural Selection. Try again. Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2022 22:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19786)
sealover wrote:
"Origin of Species", NOT Origin of Life.

Charles Darwin once filled a book with meaningless gibber babble buzzwords that cannot be discussed until I'm satisfied with your unambiguous definition for them.

That was an inside joke.

The famous book title does not claim to address the origin of life.

One idea is that the very first DNA based life of this kind started RIGHT HERE on earth, without outside intervention, divine or otherwise.

It's not impossible for life to have started right here on Earth.

You have a problem. Supposing a cell does somehow manage to get created through some random unspecified events. What's it going to eat?
sealover wrote:
4000 million years ago.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
It's not impossible for those same processes to have occurred on another distant planet, creating DNA based life.
You keep pivoting conditions.
sealover wrote:
Maybe 8000 million years ago.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
And then 4000 million years ago they seeded life on Earth.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
And maybe now its our turn to seed life on other planets.

Anyway, my favorite theory is that life began in the clay or on the clay surface.
So what is that first cell going to eat?
sealover wrote:
There is another famous book, not by Darwin, that DOES explicitly address the origin of LIFE rather than the origin of species.

Something about life coming out of the clay.

"Origin of Species", NOT Origin of Life.

What book?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-04-2022 23:18
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2719)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the fact is that Darwin said that life created itself

Nope.

Darwin did not speculate as to how life began beyond the Christian God. His only premise was that life came into existence at some point.

The quote you presented shows that Darwin had a strong distaste for the idea of life just spontaneously generating from a puddle of mineral soup.


.


LOL you are currently doing a great job of trying to frustrate yourself, while you make me laugh.

Carry on.

Oh as to what Darwin believed

Charles Darwin's quotations and quotes
In 1871 Charles Darwin wrote a now famous letter to Joseph Hooker which included some of his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life in some - warm little pond.

The letter was mailed to Hooker on February 1st, 1871.

Down,Beckenham, Kent, S.E.
My dear Hooker,

... It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.

But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.


CIAO
RE: Random Genetic Mutations Sometimes Driven by DNA Itself..29-04-2022 23:43
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
Random Genetic Mutations Sometimes Driven by DNA Itself.

Genetic mutations occur randomly, without concern for adaptive need.

Life learned early on how to make more random mutations occur when it could be beneficial.

Bacterial conjugation, during which they each exchange a small fraction of their genes is just one example.

Bacteria won't do this unless their population is under some kind of environmental stress.

This would be a good time to have more mutants available so that at least one of them might be adapted to the more stressful condition.

But they can't pick and choose and predict which gene exchange is going to create the new founding father, along with many more maladapted freaks who die.

There are many many examples of how organisms tweak the mutation rate to enhance the chance of creating a successful mutant when one is needed.

Or even just carry so many copies of the gene (polyploidy) to provide more opportunities for mutations, plus some buffering with extra clean copies still available when a new mutation turns out to be funky.

This will require multiple posts.

It IS random. But life has ways of hedging its bets.

Random Genetic Mutations Sometimes Driven by DNA Itself.
RE: And this gave rise to VIRUSES.29-04-2022 23:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
And this gave rise to VIRUSES.

So, bacteria conjugate in times of stress to increase the chances for random mutation to create a better adapted mutant.

But this created a niche for renegade genes to become independent operators.

Some of those little pieces of genes they exchanged had interests of their own.

They would instruct the next bacteria just to make a whole bunch more of THEM

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

sealover wrote:
Random Genetic Mutations Sometimes Driven by DNA Itself.

Genetic mutations occur randomly, without concern for adaptive need.

Life learned early on how to make more random mutations occur when it could be beneficial.

Bacterial conjugation, during which they each exchange a small fraction of their genes is just one example.

Bacteria won't do this unless their population is under some kind of environmental stress.

This would be a good time to have more mutants available so that at least one of them might be adapted to the more stressful condition.

But they can't pick and choose and predict which gene exchange is going to create the new founding father, along with many more maladapted freaks who die.

There are many many examples of how organisms tweak the mutation rate to enhance the chance of creating a successful mutant when one is needed.

Or even just carry so many copies of the gene (polyploidy) to provide more opportunities for mutations, plus some buffering with extra clean copies still available when a new mutation turns out to be funky.

This will require multiple posts.

It IS random. But life has ways of hedging its bets.

Random Genetic Mutations Sometimes Driven by DNA Itself.
RE: "What book?" 3 consecutive posts to say NOTHING.30-04-2022 00:33
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
"What book?" 3 consecutive posts to say NOTHING.

They are now to be found in the Parrot Boy library.

But they do not have titles.

They only identify which thread was being trolled.

Unless the guy who will forever ignore them responds and leaves them intact in his own post, they will never be seen in the scientific library by any site visitors.

It is a troll-free AND a spam-free zone.


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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
"Origin of Species", NOT Origin of Life.

Charles Darwin once filled a book with meaningless gibber babble buzzwords that cannot be discussed until I'm satisfied with your unambiguous definition for them.

That was an inside joke.

The famous book title does not claim to address the origin of life.

One idea is that the very first DNA based life of this kind started RIGHT HERE on earth, without outside intervention, divine or otherwise.

It's not impossible for life to have started right here on Earth.

You have a problem. Supposing a cell does somehow manage to get created through some random unspecified events. What's it going to eat?
sealover wrote:
4000 million years ago.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
It's not impossible for those same processes to have occurred on another distant planet, creating DNA based life.
You keep pivoting conditions.
sealover wrote:
Maybe 8000 million years ago.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
And then 4000 million years ago they seeded life on Earth.
How do you know? Were you there?
sealover wrote:
And maybe now its our turn to seed life on other planets.

Anyway, my favorite theory is that life began in the clay or on the clay surface.
So what is that first cell going to eat?
sealover wrote:
There is another famous book, not by Darwin, that DOES explicitly address the origin of LIFE rather than the origin of species.

Something about life coming out of the clay.

"Origin of Species", NOT Origin of Life.

What book?
RE: Sexual versus Asexual Reproduction - Costs and Benefits.30-04-2022 04:02
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
Sexual versus Asexual Reproduction - Costs and Benefits.

Many organisms on Earth are capable of either sexual or asexual reproduction.

Many have the option to simply bud off a clone. Lots of them if they choose.

Later in life that same organism may combine its genes with another of its species.

Costs and benefits.

Cloning is safe sex. No need to expose oneself to predators in the search for a partner. No need to move anywhere or send gametes out to search for a partner.

But cloning just gives you more of the same. No genetic diversity.

The high risk practice of sexual reproduction has a potentially very high price.

But it results in genetic diversity.

The more advanced lines of organism reproduce sexually and ONLY sexually.

That way they get more of those random mutations that keep up the diversity.

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

sealover wrote:
Random Genetic Mutations Sometimes Driven by DNA Itself.

Genetic mutations occur randomly, without concern for adaptive need.

Life learned early on how to make more random mutations occur when it could be beneficial.

Bacterial conjugation, during which they each exchange a small fraction of their genes is just one example.

Bacteria won't do this unless their population is under some kind of environmental stress.

This would be a good time to have more mutants available so that at least one of them might be adapted to the more stressful condition.

But they can't pick and choose and predict which gene exchange is going to create the new founding father, along with many more maladapted freaks who die.

There are many many examples of how organisms tweak the mutation rate to enhance the chance of creating a successful mutant when one is needed.

Or even just carry so many copies of the gene (polyploidy) to provide more opportunities for mutations, plus some buffering with extra clean copies still available when a new mutation turns out to be funky.

This will require multiple posts.

It IS random. But life has ways of hedging its bets.

Random Genetic Mutations Sometimes Driven by DNA Itself.
30-04-2022 04:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12983)
Into the Night wrote:You have a problem. Supposing a cell does somehow manage to get created through some random unspecified events. What's it going to eat?

Just remember, the current prevailing abiogenesis theories do not propose a "cell" just magically coming into existence.

The theories rest on the ways carbon atoms can bond given energy and any of a spectrum of conditions. This is the basis for organic molecules which, given energy and any of a spectrum of conditions can form peptides and RNA. Given energy and any of a spectrum of conditions, greater variations can develop (random) or be developed (arbitrary).

Of course none of this has anything to do with Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection as illucidated in The Origin of Species. Darwin stipulated that life came about at some point, but he preferred the idea that the Christian God did all that creating. His epiphany, or his contribution to discussion, was that the time scale involved in God's Creation was far greater than the "thousands of years" that was popular at the time and, of course, made him an instant enemy of established mainstream Christianity. However, Darwin stuck to his guns and made his case, and to this day, no one has been able effectively discount or deny any of Darwin's observations which were published in The Origin of Species.

The bottom line is that Charles Darwin presents no conclusions; he presents compelling observations that many Christian church leaders fear might cause members of their congregations to reassess their beliefs about the age of the earth, so the leaders demonize The Origin of Species and instill FEAR and PANIC at the idea of reading its words.

I encourage everybody everywhere to read it. I have it posted on Politiplex *HERE*.

I can assure any Christians who fear (and perhaps demonize) Darwin's The Origin of Species, that all they will find on those pages is one amazing "What I Did on My Summer Vacation." There is no "Life came from nothing" or "There is no God" or anything that isn't some observation about plants, birds, animals and insects ... and it isn't boring either. It might even classify as the world's first "Amazing Animal Facts." It's a really good read and should be required for all highschool freshmen. As a biology resource it is incomparable and, as I said previously, there is no dogma of any sort. Just observations and intelligent discussion thereof.

Good stuff.

Into the Night wrote:
squeal over wrote: There is another famous book, not by Darwin, that DOES explicitly address the origin of LIFE rather than the origin of species. Something about life coming out of the clay."Origin of Species", NOT Origin of Life.
What book?

Of course, squeal over is mocking the Bible and, by extension, mocking Christians. It's what Marxists do.

This would be a good moment for the Bible Troll:



Job 21:3 - Suffer me that I may speak; and after that I have spoken, mock on.

Proverbs 1:26 - I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;



.
30-04-2022 15:51
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
IBdaMann wrote:
You don't spell very well. How do you write down people's orders?

That is a very good question IBM.

As I said before I am a nervous writer and make lots of mistakes when writing and have long sentences.

The diner is not one of those fancy city ones with a 10 page menu and we have a single sided one page mene where everything has a number so I just write down a table number and customer name and order numbers like 4-Joe-10-4 is Joe at table 10 wants the 3 scrambled eggs combo with coffee.

The prices are reallyl simple to and there are only a few different ones on the menu so it is easy to add up.


30-04-2022 23:37
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2719)
GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You don't spell very well. How do you write down people's orders?

That is a very good question IBM.

As I said before I am a nervous writer and make lots of mistakes when writing and have long sentences.

The diner is not one of those fancy city ones with a 10 page menu and we have a single sided one page mene where everything has a number so I just write down a table number and customer name and order numbers like 4-Joe-10-4 is Joe at table 10 wants the 3 scrambled eggs combo with coffee.

The prices are reallyl simple to and there are only a few different ones on the menu so it is easy to add up.


Watch the super agent shoot himself in the foot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfONckOPyaI

CIAO
01-05-2022 02:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19786)
sealover wrote:
And this gave rise to VIRUSES.
Viruses aren't alive and don't necessarily have DNA.
sealover wrote:
So, bacteria conjugate in times of stress to increase the chances for random mutation to create a better adapted mutant.
A virus cannot mutate. It cannot even reproduce. It is not alive.
sealover wrote:
But this created a niche for renegade genes to become independent operators.

Some of those little pieces of genes they exchanged had interests of their own.

They would instruct the next bacteria just to make a whole bunch more of THEM

Define 'renegade gene'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-05-2022 02:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19786)
sealover wrote:
Sexual versus Asexual Reproduction - Costs and Benefits.

Many organisms on Earth are capable of either sexual or asexual reproduction.

Many have the option to simply bud off a clone. Lots of them if they choose.

Later in life that same organism may combine its genes with another of its species.

Costs and benefits.

Cloning is safe sex. No need to expose oneself to predators in the search for a partner. No need to move anywhere or send gametes out to search for a partner.

Cloning isn't sex.
sealover wrote:
But cloning just gives you more of the same. No genetic diversity.

Nope a mutation may occur.
sealover wrote:
The high risk practice of sexual reproduction has a potentially very high price.

But it results in genetic diversity.

The more advanced lines of organism reproduce sexually and ONLY sexually.

That way they get more of those random mutations that keep up the diversity.

Sex isn't mutations.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: We shall leave no tern unstoned.01-05-2022 04:21
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
We shall leave no tern unstoned.

Full disclosure.

Yes, I WAS there and I DID see the tripping liver flukes wiggle a lot.

I was barely sixteen, visiting my older brother at snodfart.

I got to hang out with him in his lab that weekend. 1975.

Once the flukes got to wiggling enough, he flash froze them with liquid nitrogen, so he could later cut out their frozen brains.

Many years later, he did neuro pharmacology research with birds and THC.

The birds were terns, and they revealed specific neuroreceptors for THC.

I made up a joke for him.

The other scientists were criticizing the work.

He had performed the experiment with no "control" group.

How could they conclude anything without a control for comparison?

Well, it was a matter of principle. One had to be THOROUGH in the search.

We shall leave no tern unstoned.
01-05-2022 05:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12983)
sealover wrote:We shall leave no tern unstoned.

That was good. I like that.
Attached image:

RE: Just ONE real scientist to be invited for May Day celebration.02-05-2022 00:01
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
Just ONE real scientist to be invited for May Day celebration.

This website is still a much too hostile environment to expose anyone I care about to.

But there is ONE real scientist I'm going to invite later today.

This guy is not a biogeochemist or climate scientist or atmospheric physicist or any of that environmental stuff.

This guy's discovery actually won a NOBEL PRIZE.

I'm proud as hell for that, vicariously.

Using rabbit livers, he identified the protein regulator for cGMP.

Might not hear from him right away, but he could make a hell of a fine contribution to a thread about the neuro pharmacological basis of consciousness.

Of course, the previous inhabitants of this site will make it clear that this, too, is just another lie.

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


sealover wrote:
We shall leave no tern unstoned.

Full disclosure.

Yes, I WAS there and I DID see the tripping liver flukes wiggle a lot.

I was barely sixteen, visiting my older brother at snodfart.

I got to hang out with him in his lab that weekend. 1975.

Once the flukes got to wiggling enough, he flash froze them with liquid nitrogen, so he could later cut out their frozen brains.

Many years later, he did neuro pharmacology research with birds and THC.

The birds were terns, and they revealed specific neuroreceptors for THC.

I made up a joke for him.

The other scientists were criticizing the work.

He had performed the experiment with no "control" group.

How could they conclude anything without a control for comparison?

Well, it was a matter of principle. One had to be THOROUGH in the search.

We shall leave no tern unstoned.
02-05-2022 00:12
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
Are you effing kidding me?

Al Gore got a Nobel Prize.

Jimmy Carter got a Nobel Prize.

Isn't it kind of a disgrace to be publicly mocked by earning a Nobel Prize?

If they ever try to yoke me with one of those, they better put the wrong name on it.

"Experts".... HA! What do THEY know?

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

sealover wrote:
Just ONE real scientist to be invited for May Day celebration.

This website is still a much too hostile environment to expose anyone I care about to.

But there is ONE real scientist I'm going to invite later today.

This guy is not a biogeochemist or climate scientist or atmospheric physicist or any of that environmental stuff.

This guy's discovery actually won a NOBEL PRIZE.

I'm proud as hell for that, vicariously.

Using rabbit livers, he identified the protein regulator for cGMP.

Might not hear from him right away, but he could make a hell of a fine contribution to a thread about the neuro pharmacological basis of consciousness.

Of course, the previous inhabitants of this site will make it clear that this, too, is just another lie.

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


sealover wrote:
We shall leave no tern unstoned.

Full disclosure.

Yes, I WAS there and I DID see the tripping liver flukes wiggle a lot.

I was barely sixteen, visiting my older brother at snodfart.

I got to hang out with him in his lab that weekend. 1975.

Once the flukes got to wiggling enough, he flash froze them with liquid nitrogen, so he could later cut out their frozen brains.

Many years later, he did neuro pharmacology research with birds and THC.

The birds were terns, and they revealed specific neuroreceptors for THC.

I made up a joke for him.

The other scientists were criticizing the work.

He had performed the experiment with no "control" group.

How could they conclude anything without a control for comparison?

Well, it was a matter of principle. One had to be THOROUGH in the search.

We shall leave no tern unstoned.
RE: I ALWAYS acknowledged you as the smartest one in the family.02-05-2022 00:38
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
I ALWAYS acknowledged you as the smartest one in the family.

Hell, you taught me half of what I know.

But don't you think I might be in a tie for second place?

If you don't decide to simply shun this website, how about "Brainlover"?

You know a lot more about this stuff than I do. I've always acknowledged it.

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


sealover wrote:
Just ONE real scientist to be invited for May Day celebration.

This website is still a much too hostile environment to expose anyone I care about to.

But there is ONE real scientist I'm going to invite later today.

This guy is not a biogeochemist or climate scientist or atmospheric physicist or any of that environmental stuff.

This guy's discovery actually won a NOBEL PRIZE.

I'm proud as hell for that, vicariously.

Using rabbit livers, he identified the protein regulator for cGMP.

Might not hear from him right away, but he could make a hell of a fine contribution to a thread about the neuro pharmacological basis of consciousness.

Of course, the previous inhabitants of this site will make it clear that this, too, is just another lie.

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


sealover wrote:
We shall leave no tern unstoned.

Full disclosure.

Yes, I WAS there and I DID see the tripping liver flukes wiggle a lot.

I was barely sixteen, visiting my older brother at snodfart.

I got to hang out with him in his lab that weekend. 1975.

Once the flukes got to wiggling enough, he flash froze them with liquid nitrogen, so he could later cut out their frozen brains.

Many years later, he did neuro pharmacology research with birds and THC.

The birds were terns, and they revealed specific neuroreceptors for THC.

I made up a joke for him.

The other scientists were criticizing the work.

He had performed the experiment with no "control" group.

How could they conclude anything without a control for comparison?

Well, it was a matter of principle. One had to be THOROUGH in the search.

We shall leave no tern unstoned.
RE: At least HE will understand all the gibber babble buzzwords.02-05-2022 01:05
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(199)
At least HE will understand all the gibber babble buzzwords.

Big bro has always been among the intended "target audience".

Like other real scientists in the real world, he UNDERSTANDS all the gibber babble buzzwords that allow for concise, clear scientific communication.

A single word can say what it would take an entire sentence or two to say in laymen's terms.

A single paragraph of concise, clear buzzword gibber babble can say a LOT to someone who understands the language of science.

But, a picture is worth a thousand words.

In my first failed attempt to post here, I wanted to cut and paste CARTOONS.

Paul Gersper used my presentation of an example of how to make complex scientific concepts clear to anyone with above average 7th grader intelligence.

It all depended on the visual aids.

No polysyllabic terms required. They would just be a distraction.

Just a good cartoon of the interaction dynamics.

It was going to be a PICTURE of a cross section of saltwater wetland.

Groundwater flows, elevation differences for hydraulic gradient, chemical symbols instead of words... A picture is worth a thousand of them.

My techno incompetence forced me to use another approach.

Then I got to LIKING it that way.

So, big bro, if you are willing to indulge me, you can post your wildest musings without perfectionist restrictions. You don't have to cite anyone or anything.

If it is already in the standard textbooks, you don't have to cite your sources, or justify your terminology.

You can be "Brainlover", or anyone you want here.

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

sealover wrote:
I ALWAYS acknowledged you as the smartest one in the family.

Hell, you taught me half of what I know.

But don't you think I might be in a tie for second place?

If you don't decide to simply shun this website, how about "Brainlover"?

You know a lot more about this stuff than I do. I've always acknowledged it.

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


sealover wrote:
Just ONE real scientist to be invited for May Day celebration.

This website is still a much too hostile environment to expose anyone I care about to.

But there is ONE real scientist I'm going to invite later today.

This guy is not a biogeochemist or climate scientist or atmospheric physicist or any of that environmental stuff.

This guy's discovery actually won a NOBEL PRIZE.

I'm proud as hell for that, vicariously.

Using rabbit livers, he identified the protein regulator for cGMP.

Might not hear from him right away, but he could make a hell of a fine contribution to a thread about the neuro pharmacological basis of consciousness.

Of course, the previous inhabitants of this site will make it clear that this, too, is just another lie.

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


sealover wrote:
We shall leave no tern unstoned.

Full disclosure.

Yes, I WAS there and I DID see the tripping liver flukes wiggle a lot.

I was barely sixteen, visiting my older brother at snodfart.

I got to hang out with him in his lab that weekend. 1975.

Once the flukes got to wiggling enough, he flash froze them with liquid nitrogen, so he could later cut out their frozen brains.

Many years later, he did neuro pharmacology research with birds and THC.

The birds were terns, and they revealed specific neuroreceptors for THC.

I made up a joke for him.

The other scientists were criticizing the work.

He had performed the experiment with no "control" group.

How could they conclude anything without a control for comparison?

Well, it was a matter of principle. One had to be THOROUGH in the search.

We shall leave no tern unstoned.
02-05-2022 01:08
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4440)
sealover wrote:
Just ONE real scientist to be invited for May Day celebration.

This website is still a much too hostile environment to expose anyone I care about to.

But there is ONE real scientist I'm going to invite later today.

This guy is not a biogeochemist or climate scientist or atmospheric physicist or any of that environmental stuff.

This guy's discovery actually won a NOBEL PRIZE.

I'm proud as hell for that, vicariously.

Using rabbit livers, he identified the protein regulator for cGMP.

Might not hear from him right away, but he could make a hell of a fine contribution to a thread about the neuro pharmacological basis of consciousness.

Of course, the previous inhabitants of this site will make it clear that this, too, is just another lie.

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


sealover wrote:
We shall leave no tern unstoned.

Full disclosure.

Yes, I WAS there and I DID see the tripping liver flukes wiggle a lot.

I was barely sixteen, visiting my older brother at snodfart.

I got to hang out with him in his lab that weekend. 1975.

Once the flukes got to wiggling enough, he flash froze them with liquid nitrogen, so he could later cut out their frozen brains.

Many years later, he did neuro pharmacology research with birds and THC.

The birds were terns, and they revealed specific neuroreceptors for THC.

I made up a joke for him.

The other scientists were criticizing the work.

He had performed the experiment with no "control" group.

How could they conclude anything without a control for comparison?

Well, it was a matter of principle. One had to be THOROUGH in the search.

We shall leave no tern unstoned.


How disappointing, another sock-puppet... Your pitiful attempt with one sock, likely means another insulting performance of the second. You will lose...
RE: Connective tissue as a single interconnected organ.02-05-2022 21:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
Connective tissue as a single integrated organ.

Medical science discovered "connective tissue" a long time ago.

Many theories about what it was or what good it did a body to have it.

Just a few years ago, it was discovered that the connective tissue is a single massive organ connected to each and every part of the body.

Noting that the interstitial space can control the pressure of gas inside it, one theory is that it could be a shock absorber to protect vital organs.

Noting that the interstitial space can transport material, such as tattoo pigments, another theory is that it removes waste products and foreign materials from the body.

In the context of how a human body is a symbiosis of two dimorphic clones, here is another possible explanation for how we ended up with this massive connective tissue organ.

Two independent creatures joined in symbiosis. Each one brought its own respiratory system to bring in oxygen and evacuate carbon dioxide.

One of them had a lunglike or gill like structure that used hemoglobin as the carrier for oxygen and carbon dioxide.

The other one had a tracheid like structure in which a network of tiny tubes allowed oxygen to enter and carbon dioxide to leave.

But, unlike the arthropod tracheid structure, this creature had a one-way flow system. The holes where oxygen rich water came in were not the same holes where carbon dioxide rich water exited.

When the two creatures joined together in symbiosis, it had twice as many respiratory systems as it needed.

One became more specialized for delivering oxygen and removing carbon dioxide, using hemoglobin as carrier in a closed circulatory system.

The other became more specialized for removing waste products and foreign materials.

Volatile organic compounds, common metabolic waste products, do not dissolve well in blood. They are more easily removed through a tracheid like tube network.

The connective tissue organ uses positive and negative pressure to move gas and liquid. It pushes only lightly with the positive pressure. It pulls hard, like really hard, with the tension of negative pressure.

Talk about your migrane headaches and charlie horses.

The intake and outlet points for liquid and gas to the interstitia are throughout the skin, paranasal sinuses, and a few parts of the guts.

This is just a preview.

Connective tissue as a single interconnected organ.
02-05-2022 22:13
James_
★★★★☆
(1140)
And there's a PhD scientist who I don't get along with. He's studying why seeds and aerosols bind to each other. The specific bond isn't understood. Tissue bonding to other tissue because of covalent bonds is to be expected just as with seeds and aerosols.
What isn't understood is how a single celled organism can become a person. How can one cell deviate into a thousand cells? A person, animal or plant comes from one cell. Kind of why I prefer science I can understand. The deviation of a singularity or anomaly is a freak of nature.
And then they'll say either RNA or DNA but not how it can be varied from one cell to the next. Realistically speaking your heart and your brain come from the same cell and the same DNA.

sealover wrote:
Connective tissue as a single integrated organ.

Medical science discovered "connective tissue" a long time ago.

Many theories about what it was or what good it did a body to have it.

Just a few years ago, it was discovered that the connective tissue is a single massive organ connected to each and every part of the body.

Noting that the interstitial space can control the pressure of gas inside it, one theory is that it could be a shock absorber to protect vital organs.

Noting that the interstitial space can transport material, such as tattoo pigments, another theory is that it removes waste products and foreign materials from the body.

In the context of how a human body is a symbiosis of two dimorphic clones, here is another possible explanation for how we ended up with this massive connective tissue organ.

Two independent creatures joined in symbiosis. Each one brought its own respiratory system to bring in oxygen and evacuate carbon dioxide.

One of them had a lunglike or gill like structure that used hemoglobin as the carrier for oxygen and carbon dioxide.

The other one had a tracheid like structure in which a network of tiny tubes allowed oxygen to enter and carbon dioxide to leave.

But, unlike the arthropod tracheid structure, this creature had a one-way flow system. The holes where oxygen rich water came in were not the same holes where carbon dioxide rich water exited.

When the two creatures joined together in symbiosis, it had twice as many respiratory systems as it needed.

One became more specialized for delivering oxygen and removing carbon dioxide, using hemoglobin as carrier in a closed circulatory system.

The other became more specialized for removing waste products and foreign materials.

Volatile organic compounds, common metabolic waste products, do not dissolve well in blood. They are more easily removed through a tracheid like tube network.

The connective tissue organ uses positive and negative pressure to move gas and liquid. It pushes only lightly with the positive pressure. It pulls hard, like really hard, with the tension of negative pressure.

Talk about your migrane headaches and charlie horses.

The intake and outlet points for liquid and gas to the interstitia are throughout the skin, paranasal sinuses, and a few parts of the guts.

This is just a preview.

Connective tissue as a single interconnected organ.
RE: The bonds that hold cells together.02-05-2022 22:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(806)
The bonds that hold cell together.

Covalent bonds are the strongest attachments in chemistry.

Ionic bonds are weaker, but still hold things together.

Non polar (hydrophobic) London dispersion forces are weaker still.

But they are flexible. They can easily detach and reattach in a different position.

The most important bonds that hold cells together are the weakest ones.

The lipids in the cell membrane are held together by non polar interactions.

Living cells and the multicellular animals they can become have a lot of moving parts.

Too much rigidity from too many covalent bonds would be maladaptive.

When a sperm and egg unite to form a single cell it has just one (combined) set of genes to work with.

None of the cells that form from that first cell are quite like it.

The more they divide, the more they diverge into distinct types.

They still all have just that original set of genes, but which genes are being activated depends on what kind of cell it has diverged into.

The search for stem cells is to have something to start over with. A cell that is not already committed to activating any particular genes within it.

A brain cell cannot give rise to a heart cell, or visa versa.

A stem cell can give rise to either a brain cell or a heart cell. Or any other kind.

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

James_ wrote:
And there's a PhD scientist who I don't get along with. He's studying why seeds and aerosols bind to each other. The specific bond isn't understood. Tissue bonding to other tissue because of covalent bonds is to be expected just as with seeds and aerosols.
What isn't understood is how a single celled organism can become a person. How can one cell deviate into a thousand cells? A person, animal or plant comes from one cell. Kind of why I prefer science I can understand. The deviation of a singularity or anomaly is a freak of nature.
And then they'll say either RNA or DNA but not how it can be varied from one cell to the next. Realistically speaking your heart and your brain come from the same cell and the same DNA.

sealover wrote:
Connective tissue as a single integrated organ.

Medical science discovered "connective tissue" a long time ago.

Many theories about what it was or what good it did a body to have it.

Just a few years ago, it was discovered that the connective tissue is a single massive organ connected to each and every part of the body.

Noting that the interstitial space can control the pressure of gas inside it, one theory is that it could be a shock absorber to protect vital organs.

Noting that the interstitial space can transport material, such as tattoo pigments, another theory is that it removes waste products and foreign materials from the body.

In the context of how a human body is a symbiosis of two dimorphic clones, here is another possible explanation for how we ended up with this massive connective tissue organ.

Two independent creatures joined in symbiosis. Each one brought its own respiratory system to bring in oxygen and evacuate carbon dioxide.

One of them had a lunglike or gill like structure that used hemoglobin as the carrier for oxygen and carbon dioxide.

The other one had a tracheid like structure in which a network of tiny tubes allowed oxygen to enter and carbon dioxide to leave.

But, unlike the arthropod tracheid structure, this creature had a one-way flow system. The holes where oxygen rich water came in were not the same holes where carbon dioxide rich water exited.

When the two creatures joined together in symbiosis, it had twice as many respiratory systems as it needed.

One became more specialized for delivering oxygen and removing carbon dioxide, using hemoglobin as carrier in a closed circulatory system.

The other became more specialized for removing waste products and foreign materials.

Volatile organic compounds, common metabolic waste products, do not dissolve well in blood. They are more easily removed through a tracheid like tube network.

The connective tissue organ uses positive and negative pressure to move gas and liquid. It pushes only lightly with the positive pressure. It pulls hard, like really hard, with the tension of negative pressure.

Talk about your migrane headaches and charlie horses.

The intake and outlet points for liquid and gas to the interstitia are throughout the skin, paranasal sinuses, and a few parts of the guts.

This is just a preview.

Connective tissue as a single interconnected organ.
02-05-2022 22:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19786)
sealover wrote:
Just ONE real scientist to be invited for May Day celebration.

May Day is a communist celebration.
sealover wrote:
This website is still a much too hostile environment to expose anyone I care about to.

And you're there to protect them from such things as science talked about here. Gotit.
sealover wrote:
But there is ONE real scientist I'm going to invite later today.

You going to make another sock?
sealover wrote:
This guy is not a biogeochemist or climate scientist or atmospheric physicist or any of that environmental stuff.

No such branches of science.
sealover wrote:
This guy's discovery actually won a NOBEL PRIZE.

Science is not a prize or award.
sealover wrote:
I'm proud as hell for that, vicariously.

Meh.
sealover wrote:
Using rabbit livers, he identified the protein regulator for cGMP.

The last time I saw these letters together is was referring to a piece of the GCC compiler in Unix.
sealover wrote:
Might not hear from him right away, but he could make a hell of a fine contribution to a thread about the neuro pharmacological basis of consciousness.

Religion isn't science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2022 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19786)
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
Just ONE real scientist to be invited for May Day celebration.

This website is still a much too hostile environment to expose anyone I care about to.

But there is ONE real scientist I'm going to invite later today.

This guy is not a biogeochemist or climate scientist or atmospheric physicist or any of that environmental stuff.

This guy's discovery actually won a NOBEL PRIZE.

I'm proud as hell for that, vicariously.

Using rabbit livers, he identified the protein regulator for cGMP.

Might not hear from him right away, but he could make a hell of a fine contribution to a thread about the neuro pharmacological basis of consciousness.

Of course, the previous inhabitants of this site will make it clear that this, too, is just another lie.

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


sealover wrote:
We shall leave no tern unstoned.

Full disclosure.

Yes, I WAS there and I DID see the tripping liver flukes wiggle a lot.

I was barely sixteen, visiting my older brother at snodfart.

I got to hang out with him in his lab that weekend. 1975.

Once the flukes got to wiggling enough, he flash froze them with liquid nitrogen, so he could later cut out their frozen brains.

Many years later, he did neuro pharmacology research with birds and THC.

The birds were terns, and they revealed specific neuroreceptors for THC.

I made up a joke for him.

The other scientists were criticizing the work.

He had performed the experiment with no "control" group.

How could they conclude anything without a control for comparison?

Well, it was a matter of principle. One had to be THOROUGH in the search.

We shall leave no tern unstoned.


How disappointing, another sock-puppet... Your pitiful attempt with one sock, likely means another insulting performance of the second. You will lose...


So it would seem. I guess he couldn't muster up his army of scientists, so he's going to have to fake it with ONE 'scientist' using socks.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-05-2022 22:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19786)
sealover wrote:
Connective tissue as a single integrated organ.
...deleted Holy Quote...


Cut and pasting is getting you nowhere. Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Relativity theory31703-11-2022 19:38
Grand Unified Theory3212-05-2022 19:54
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
Theory About Impeachment Proceedings8404-01-2020 13:13
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Articles
Theory
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact