minass

Ok! The first 2 paragraphs in the OP were written very briefly, only to make a brief introduction. As I can see, I made a lot of errors while expressing myself, such as the following expression: evolution is incomplete as a theory. But please don’t see the tree and miss the forest. Of course chemical reactions are not random, as anything in this universe is not random. But as a native English speaker, please help me find the right term. If you have a bottle with boiling water, then the water molecules that are moving inside the bottle are moving randomly or what? Of course, no movement is random as everything follows natural laws, but don’t you say that they move randomly if you want to say that they move purposelessly? Also, what would be the picture of the system through the eyes of a moving molecule? I want to use something analogous for a sum of billions of chemical reactions that just happen to occur randomly near the surface of earth.

To Ophiolite and strange: In a few words what I am trying to say: I am arguing that evolution cannot simply explain everything. It is incomplete as a theory. For instance, it cannot explain how life was created in the first place. On the other hand, I am saying that given the fact that we (a sum of chemical reactions inside the system) are the reference frame for the phenomenon of life, can give us another perspective of the term evolution. This means that even if complex reactions near the surface of earth were actually random, in the long term, a sequence of events would have happened (as previously explained), that through the eyes of a sum of end reactions (like us), would be perceived as evolution (survival of the fittest reactions). In this case, evolution and natural history of random spontaneously occurring reactions seems to be the two different sides of the same coin. As of what new does this different viewpoint offers apart from how life was created in the first place (Simply and clear, just spontaneously occurring random chemical reactions, without debates regarding entropy changes, extremely fortunate coincidents, etc..)?? hmm Ophiolite: Despite the fact that our point is not to accuse medicine, I will tell you this. Oncology is the area in which most research is conducted. All money goes there and it’s the area in which most progress was made during the past decades. Despite the fact that our knowledge regarding cancer has dramatically increased, apart from some exceptions (e.g. imatinib, trastuzumab), the highly celebrated leaps in therapeutics, refers to statistically significant increases in progression free and/or overall survival of 2, 3, 4 or even 6 months. Strange: Personalized medicine already exists, but its only in its infancy. I am suggesting a different approach though.

Greg H: Of course life is an open system and thats why i am arguing that chemical reactions on earth were becoming more and more in terms of numbers and complexity over time, instead of leading to equillibrium that would be the case if life was a closed system. Do you really believe that life forms were created as a result of local decreases in entropy? And if this happened once, what is the chance that it happened again and again in all the creatures? And why do you think that living beings have low entropy states? Only because they have a survival capacity? Why is survival capacity so important? Maybe because of our perspective? Even random reactions would lead in a state in which those reactions that prevail would be those with repeatability and survival capacities in the long term. Through the eyes of the result of all these reactions, the system would be perceived as lowering its entropy. Physica: People think that because there are huge leaps in modern technology, there are also huge leaps in medicine as in every other science. The truth is that this is not the case for medicine. In fact, if you read a medical textbook back from the 1970s or 80s, you can see that very little has been changed in terms of what matters the most: the effectiveness of treatments. If you go to a hospital, you have almost exactly the same possibility to leave the hospital alive, as you had back in the 70s or 80s. In some case howeverthe prognosis is better, but definitely these cases don't overcome iatrogenic causes of death. Textbooks nowadays are double in size, but they are full of details and useless knowledge in terms of practical significance. I think that this problem will be more evident in the future. What medical research does is to test a regimen if it poses positive effects for the organism, testing the statistical significance of the obtained results. If you exclude diseases causes my microorganisms that need to be killed, or diseases caused by the lack of a single substance, in fact most diseases especially in the elderly, are caused by multiple factors. Human is composed of trillions of chemical reactions that are replaced by others as we age. Elderly people become diseased because there is a general deregulation. The particular disease is only the edge of the iceberg. Even if we treat it, in a month the patient will be admitted for another reason. My question is: No matter how many we understand, how can we reverse the whole process with a single regimen? How to stop a river with your finger? I think that the current approach has no role in the future of medicine and the sooner we understand this the better. Medicine must become personalized and analyzed under mathematical and chemical rules. If human is a sum of random chemical reactions, this means that they can react predictably as a chemical automaton. Thus we can manipulate the whole system by controlling the first substrates (food) of the system. We dont even have to know all the reactions in the system. Only the way the end products are changing depending on the quantity and quality of the first substrates. In the case of longevity and preventing aging, the goal is to maintain the system as unchanged as possible. Don't you have a feeling that this will inevitably will be the face of medicine in the future?

The entire history of revolutions in human thinking is full of examples in which complicated human-centered theories gave its place to simple explanations in which human is just a part inside a system and because of this fact, he has a subjective view. In the beginning, people thought the earth was flat, because that was what everybody observed. However, there were fundamental inconsistencies with this model, both mathematical and logical. Additionally, human couldn’t feel the motion of the earth and thus, believed their eyes and tried to explain the skies with the assumption that earth was the center of the universe. However, things were getting far too complicated, and finally this model was replaced with the heliocentric which made things easy and clear. In all cases we were a part inside the system and we couldn’t have an objective view of things. However, can we say that today we got rid of all thee subjectivities? Is there still way to go? I believe the latter is the case. Take for instance the phenomenon of life. All that is there is a complex system of countless chemical reactions. These reactions seem to have some amazing properties that violate the way generally nature works, because as we know, nature tends to simplify things by increasing entropy and moving toward lower energy states. What we have in life instead, is a system of sophisticated and stochastic reactions that lead to more and more sophisticated organisms with higher organization. These organisms are self-sustained through a complicated process that is called homeostasis. The complexity of the latter becomes more and more evident as we try to study every aspect of it in detail. For instance, acid base balance in an organism depends on a series of events that are cooperating in a way that if a single procedure was not there, then the whole system would be malfufunctiong. Even a relatively simple process such as Krebs cycle is composed of such a complex system of reactions, including upregulators and downregulators that ensures that the cycle is self regulated. Countless reactions, but not a single one is placed in chance. How extraordinary!! How can all these occur spontaneously? My question is: Can human subjectivity help us find a more simple explanation? In fact, can we make this extremely simple and assume that all the reactions that compose life on earth are actually random? Can they just be reactions that with the help of external sources of energy like sunlight are simply becoming more and more complex over time? Before you say that the answer is no, just think who is the observer of all these. WE. The end results. A part inside the system that judges this system from the inside. The causes judged by the result. In other words, subjectivity on its extreme. Think about it: Even if there were only random chemical reactions what would happen on primordial earth? The reactions with repeatability that occur in a cyclic manner would not eventually lead to a dead end and eventually would go on indefinitely in the long term (what we perceive as reproduction?). In addition, some reactions with specific characteristics would eventually survive, either because they promote their own existence, or they give them survival advantage toward others. This fact, with a little help of repeatability would lead to the creation of reactions with three characteristics: survival capacity, complexity and repeatability. If the reference frame is the results of these, or else ourselves, the whole process is actually perceived as evolution. To put it mathematically, evolution is called the study of the random series of events that lead to the transformation of A to B, where B=[b1,B2,B3,….Bv], when things are viewed through the perspective of either B1, or B2, or B3, …….or Bv. In other words, we exist not because a conspiracy force promotes our evolution, but because our reactions continue to occur. We are the ones that give value to our existence. The importance of this viewpoint is that apart from the fact that it answers previously unanswered questions, it assumes that living beings are actually complex systems of reactions, and can thus be manipulated in predictable ways under chemical laws. This means that apart from the fact that the theory is testable and falsifiable, it indicates major implications for medicine.