Biological Evolution (part 6 of ?)

[669dream]

WTF are you saying....... Your to smart lol

[sb2jan]

You're cute ;)

[rexcaesar1]

I feel like you're forgetting the role of microRNA molecules in this argument.

[benthemiester]

Dawkins may be the most popular biologist out there but he is one of the least to to write his own field research papers, although he has written many popular books & articles for the indoctrinated. Its the DNA that contains the encoded information. Of course phospholipids are extremely complex structures that hold the cell in place but this is not whats meant by a gene centered view. Epigenetics is a non gene centric view & is now challenging current paradigm. I've posted a vid with S. Newman.

[markgg1]

But the DNA would have been the self replicator in the beginning of living things. The cell membrane is simply the wall that surrounds it. A structural component, and I don t think much emphasis needs to be put onto it. What seperates my cells from fish cells and fish cells from bacteria is the DNA, and not the membrane.

I kind off see your point, but think it just confuses things. DNA runs the show, and is the driving force of evolution.

[Lagomort]

It is funny watching someone pretend they know what they are talking about,,,

[benthemiester]

It's actually an RNA first world view that is entertained by most biologist however the problem remains the same for the reasons you just mentioned, and many more to numerous to mention. Unfortunately many in the scientific community would call you stupid for even questioning the modern synthesis. I would not agree with them. I don't care if someone believes in macro evolution or intelligent design, just as long as they keep asking the right questions. Science will eventually work itself out.

[sadafadil]

Dear sir

coule you please let me know if you belive in God as the creator and designer of plant/animal and human cell.or you belive in evolution and Darwinisem.?

[0ThouArtThat0]

I believe this is a false dichotomy.

[PhilBurningSkies]

haha! bravo.

[adorianvlad]

just to add to my video response( under inmendham's video), were you refering, Matt, to coacervate droplets, in this video?

[mrpocock]

This being said, you then go on to rail against what you see as the overlooking of the importance of membranes in biology, but come perilously close to making the exact same mistakes, substituting membranes for DNA as the potentate of function.

Biological systems are exactly that - systems. They have emergent behavior. What the interacting components do is not simply the sum of the behaviors of each component in isolation. They are complex systems, not just complicated.

[0ThouArtThat0]

The functional analysis is a result of the inherent telos of biological systems, even though the reductionists say its teleonomic. They reduce the inherent telos to nomos, or the conventions of our human language. I am drifting more and more toward the biosemiotics approach, which sees the organism as itself a maker of meaning. I wouldn't want to overemphasize the membrane, I would rather want to say that the whole cell is implicated in every activity. Cells make DNA as much as DNA makes cells.

[mrpocock]

Descriptions of activities naturally reside at different levels of granularity within biological systems. For example, the function of a region of DNA that modulates the activation of a transcript naturally resides at the granularity where transcripts, DNA regions and proteins reside, and is meaningless at other granularities, e.g. the organ level. Things happen, and at a given granularity, some of those things constitute the interesting behavior of the system described at that granularity.

[mrpocock]

There has been a tendency to big-up the importance of genetic material. This is partly a symptom of the reductionist approach to experimentation that is so pervasive throughout biology. The underlying fallacy is that the components of a system that are necessary for a given behavior are 'for' that behavior, or that only the necessary components need to be understood to grasp the behavior. This fosters an identity between the behavior and the component, leading to phrases like 'genes for X'.

[markgg1]

@mrpocock this video and your comment is straying into philosophy which I think just confuses science and distorts reality. Any theory alive can be proved true or false by some sort of philosophical rubbish. DNA is the driving force in nature, end of conversation

[StevenErnest]

Interesting!

[CivilHuman]

wa wa what?

[HaleyMary]

Great info. Thanks for sharing this.

[cardellacole1]

nice piece of info thanks mat

[GodMechanism]

and also, self organization is not consistent with Physics, unless it is reducible to statistics, like they think the law of entropy is, meaning they don't think there is an affinity towards disorder

[0ThouArtThat0]

self-organization is a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So not only is it consistent with physics, it is derived from physics.

You are neglecting the role of time in your description of EM and chance. Evolution is not inconsistent with physics unless you are of the many worlds camp which sees time as an illusion (I think this is a misguided attempt to preserve determinism in spite of all the evidence in favor of a non-determined, time irreversible universe).

[GodMechanism]

2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't explain anything, for it is statistical; it is a description, not an explanation, just as natural selection doesn't explain anything, for it is a description of events, not an explanation of events; the self assemblly of microtubules, chromosomes or even convection rolls, is not reducible to the statistical dispersion of energy in an open or in a closed system. The behavior of charged Ions feels 'Result Directed' and 'EM' Laws must be flexible if this is true

[0ThouArtThat0]

Well if you want to get down to it, I don't think any science explains nature. It is all just description. Even the laws of subatomic physics are derivative, based more on the types of experiments we are capable of performing than on any matter of fact about reality itself.

You must distinguish between the different fields of science. Biology is not reducible to physics because biological phenomena are an emergent property of physical phenomena...

[0ThouArtThat0]

...you might argue that biology is only an example of a kind of epistemic emergence, meaning that we just don't yet have sufficient knowledge of physics to reduce biology to it. I would argue that biology represents an ontological emergence, meaning that it cannot, even in principle be reduced to physics, because physics itself is done by biological organisms (and therefore restricted by all the historically contingent features of organic perception).

[GodMechanism]

I agree. biology is Completelly irreducible, as is Qualitative Perception, and also that laws, such as 'the law of EM',and 'the photon', are just metaphors; I Rag on Electromagnetism,because it needs to be 'Bent', for the Literal Explanations of the world to be outed, which seem to be directed towards building Wholes hierarchically on top of one another, where each whole has 2 & 1 Parts,such as the cell(Outer(Envelope(Nucleus) or the organism, (Abdomen(thorax(Head), and there are many more

[markgg1]

@0ThouArtThat0 no idea what epistemic means, or ontological.

[markgg1]

@GodMechanism Natural selection is an observable emperical fact. So is thermodynamics in closed systems.... I dont see your point at all?

Again philosophical silliness that just confuses people into accepting your own distorted versions of reality.

a little bit annoying to argue with

[GodMechanism]

And also I do have a notion of time, but it is one of Progression Towards Results, which is not reducible to the Evolution of events, for it is directed by something more flexible than Rigid EM laws or Rigid Statistical laws

[CousinoMacul]

Matt had it right when he said "self-organization is a direct result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So not only is it consistent with physics, it is derived from physics."

Dawkins started out one of his books (maybe "Climbing Mount Improbable" but I'm not sure) by showing how organization into stable forms and natural selection follow directly from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The brilliant part was that he never even as much as acknowledged the popular creationist fallacy in the process.

[GodMechanism]

If Only EM + Chance can determine how Bases arranged according to physics, then how is natural selection a mechanism, exerting an influence on genes; I'm saying that Darwinism is already inconsistent with Physics. The scientific worldview is not internally consistent.

We must deconstuct the scientific worldview to demonstrate it's implausibility to the average person, in order to enable Teleological Explanations to be reconsidered in Academia

[jogayot]

i presume you saw cdk07 vid ;?)

and collision of branes in cosmology... i spy with my third eye a metaphoisimily.

so what implications should it have on philosophy? borders are inevitable? we can't get rid of tribalism, nationalism, bigotry, religious srtives? because that's where the action is. interiors merely preserve informational status quo of power...

/me muses away and falls down the rain drainage canal.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Diversity is a must for sustainability. But we can diversify (acting and living locally) even while we embrace a planetary perspective (thinking and communicating globally).

[jogayot]

thouartoptimist ;) looking at it from the point of view as if it was intelligent entity as we. the inter-holon gaps in consciousness might not (99% are not) be intelligable between themselves, especially lower level holon trying to perceive higher level holon. to brute forces of it on our socio-cultural level (or whatever it may turn out, S-F authors may have a lucky shot at guess) human life is just a molecule.

thinking while walking the dog is not healthy... :-|

[Mork5]

membrane > separation > dualism > evil > life

holon = pattern of coordinated events = restricted awareness = ignorance

the socio-cultural mental is much less complex then the brain's interneuronal organization which itself is, acoording to nick, 10/90 with the 10 being intelligence, according to gary.

so all holons containing humans represent a higher order stupidity compared to individuals, organs or cells.

life emerges absurdity emerges fun

(getting closer to the dao).

[0ThouArtThat0]

...actually, Dawkins would probably disagree with the idea that "genes make organisms" is fundamentally wrong. He is not a fan of the developmental systems theory approach or biosemiotics, to my knowledge.