AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Dizzy

form_srcid: Dizzy

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.167.196.208

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is 54.167.196.208

form_author:

form_srcid: Dizzy

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Dizzy%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/03/09 06:42:34, Link
Author: Dizzy
Quote (shi @ Mar. 06 2006,18:33)
There are clearly rooms for improvement for the theory.  After all, no body debates 1+1=2 or a Newtonian theory.  If Darwinism is as goods as it is presented by its believers, we would not have any debate going on.  


Erm, which "Newtonian Theory" are you referring to?

If you're talking about gravitation or a host of other related ideas, you're wrong.  There was a debate, Newtonian gravitation was found (scientifically) to be incomplete or wrong, and General Relativity took over.

If you mean "religous wackos don't challenge teaching Newtonian gravitation in high school - even though it's demonstrably incongruent with empirical observation - because it doesn't conflict with their beliefs," that would be an accurate depiction of the difference between ToE and "a Newtonian theory."

If your last sentence above were changed to "If Darwinism didn't appear threatening to a bunch of ignorant, bible-thumping wingnuts, we would not have any debate going on," that would be accurate.

Date: 2007/02/13 09:39:22, Link
Author: Dizzy
I hope you'll pardon a reply and stupid questions from a definite non-scientist, but:

Quote
1) A self replicating molecule or self replicating series of molecules or a series of interacting molecules that template the synthesis of other molecules.


It seems to me that this is a basic requirement for us to term anything as "bio" (living or life-like) at all...is that right?

In that case, I would venture to guess that this would have to occur first, *except* that:

Quote

3) A series of effector molecules/physical scaffolding/chemoselective processes which allow for a relatively high level of "copying fidelity".


I don't quite understand this requirement.  If there is zero "copying fidelity," how can we understand a set of molecules to be "self-replicating" in the first place?  By identifying this as a requirement, doesn't it logically follow that 1) cannot occur without this?

I feel like I'm missing some important subtlety or detail here...wonder if you can help me out.

Quote

2) Some form of cellular encapsulation, which at least must incoporate a semi permeable membrane or barrier.


Daniel Dennett (not a scientist, I know, but certainly more well-read than I am) takes an interesting perspective on one aspect of life: the separation, or "dividing line" between the organism and its environment.

One property of living organisms seems to be that they expend energy to keep everything "inside" them ordered, essentially fighting against the increasing entropy of its environment and the universe at large.

For us, I guess the "line" would be our skin, or our epithelial layer, which (as I understand it) covers every part of our body that is exposed to the environment and literally acts as a wall, allowing us to expunge "disorder" (waste) while keeping out disorderly material from our environment.

But it seems like the line isn't quite as clear for some organisms; I think ants are an interesting example.  If one of the requirements for calling something "living" is the ability to replicate on its own, then a single worker ant isn't technically "alive," is it?  I.e., only one member of the colony, the queen, is actually capable of producing offspring.

If we look at the colony at large, though, it's the colony that replicates, right?  If the queen dies, another ant becomes the queen so that the colony can continue to replenish itself.  Therefore, it seems to me that the ant *colony* is in fact the "living" entity, while individual ants are "parts" necessary to make it work.

If that's true, then the "dividing line" isn't quite so clear anymore...the organism doesn't "end" at the exoskeleton of each individual ant, but includes a good portion of the environment, as well - e.g., the chemical trails that direct each ant to its task.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, if a similar situation can apply at a molecular level (not sure if it can), then 2) may well have developed after 1) and 3).  Again, not being a biologist or chemist, I have no idea if this is actually possible, but at least conceptually, I can imagine it.

Date: 2007/02/15 08:44:59, Link
Author: Dizzy
Ohh Kansas, you are such a tease.

I give it 3 years at most before someone tries "wedging" Kansas again.  Maybe not through the Board of Ed, but somehow...

 

 

 

=====