foodchain

I thnk the difficulty is in the word selection. What we appear to be seeing not selection, which implies alternatives, but progression, which implies a somewhat deterministic outcome.

 

It seems reasonable to call it progression since the emergence of complexity - particles, galaxies, stellar systems, life etc, - is not obvious from the intial almost uniform conditions of the Big Bang singularity. It is the complexity that makes the Universe interesting (and allows us to be here and be interested in it). That complexity has been increasing since the first moments of the Big Bang. I am interested in what the next emergent property might be, after life and consciousness, and whether or not it has already emerged somewhere in the Universe, and whether or not we would be able to recognise it.

That’s my main point I guess though is like evolution the reality of such at a current point in time say for life in the rain forest evolved in time to what it is or what selected in time for such. I am trying to look into various reports I can find from atom smashers for instance and the reality that we can produce various elements for any possible data to include on my idea, please remember anyone that reads this that such is just an idea. Back to the topic.

I just don’t understand how science can surely say at some point that QM can only allow for a certain expression of matter and energy. What I mean is that from a big bang point of view which for lack of better words supplied the visible and I am not sure maybe more of the universe and physical reality we study and that in the time it took to get to that QM has taken on this form. That QM really is part of a much larger whole evolving in time and really that effect also produces relativity. Such as with life, if some unstable form appears that instability and its subsequent extinction is completely dependent for the most part on the environment or life’s ability to sustain itself from any point you can want to study, such as if it has a highly deleterious mutation that basically causes the organism to self dissolve, not that such happens to my knowledge but the example I think carries in that the current forms of life are that which can survive in the environment long enough to reproduce and in time the matter and energy like anything else that composes physical reality and of course life happen to be mutable dynamic and open to selection or various variables that are both external and internal.

I think such would have to hold true for the universe, such as if things were tweaked just a little like people who follow the anthropic principle bring up the entire universe would be vastly different. Its not as if matter or energy would not exist it would all just be very different. So from what I can gather how matter and energy comes to be expressed is not a finite or fully deterministic reality. So to me then the idea again comes full circle as to why reality or nature is in current form which seems to hold true throughout the universe such as the existence of the atom for instance.

So if you can buy the anthropic principle I don’t see where my idea would be so off in saying that in time, be it a few local seconds in a cloud of "stuff" nameless and without lasting form yet to a few billions years of such an environment that dynamic or environment based selection from the smallest to the largest is not a viable idea in the least to study.

-------------------Edit--------------

Just to add more thought on my idea.

Now I don’t have any real visualizations or graphical aids, and I certainly don’t have any math to it yet. Its not something I have really put much thought into time wise, but I think if I spill enough words out some detailed thought should present itself in some form.

Ok, now lets say dark matter/energy is some mysterious X that time wise again is relativity something new and rather undefined at best save for the mysterious dark moniker handed to it. Well then basically what can be said by me of course with some grain of truth to it is that we have no hecking idea what the heck it is really. It does seem to interact though via gravity, in which gravity relates to other physical aspects of the universe right?

Now to dwindle a bit of topic for a second. What exactly is QM? What is its bounds. Looking at a cellular life form you can see how the small, or even smaller such as codons attributes in large to the larger or overall reality of a cellular organism, be it multi or single. Now not to make some weird connection about waves, then atoms, then cells, which I wont, I just want to hint on at even the smallest level again I would think things would have to work out or become stable. The opposite of stable atomically speaking I think can be referenced with the idea of the atomic bomb or a nuclear explosion and or reaction. So whatever stuff is on that small quantum level if you will its capable of ending life on the planet when packaged as a missile quite easily, well life as we know it anyways.

Going from subatomic to atomic to molecular structures all on its own is lifetimes worth of research and more. On that note though it can be said with some confidence that the earth would be drastically different if per say 70% of its mass happened to be tungsten. Also for what its worth is seems as if stars happen run on hydrogen, or I don’t know of an iron based stars or what not. The reasons for this I have no overall clue save to think again it points to very tiny origins or connections overall.

Why is it that you can have a “evolution” of sorts to particles? Such as a neutron going off to become a proton and an electron, and the proton itself not being fundamental? What about anti matter? Or the concept that we can produce here on earth elements not naturally found in occurrence? What I am getting at here is that I do know quantum systems are not isolated beings, such is evident in quantum entanglement. So how large of a field does this produce or what is the reality of such? Would it be severly drastic to say the universe might be a giant higgs boson? I know, that’s not the right thing to say. But the reality of gravity, time and the connections of QM and relativity are still not laid in concrete to this day, even though both have been in the hands of humans to think about or probe for some time now. With the discovery of the mysterious dark matter agent all of this entails to me in an idea of a evolution of sorts brought about by what QM maybe represents or encompasses. With such and in time for whatever it is the possibility to me from the reality of organic evolution is that maybe the current universe going from QM has in a sense “evolved” to its current form.

I have no ideas on how to test such. I would think doing experiments with a super collider might be able to produce in reality quantum systems which are unstable, or exotic really. I think the key at that point would be to study the impact the surrounding environment has on the reality of why those systems are unstable. I think absolute zero for some reason also could be a pointer along with quantum entanglement to support my idea.

Well between the numbers 1 and 2 you can have infinity but of course you can get from 1 to 2 which I think why such is a pointer to infinity being treated somewhat the way it is. Sort of like that statement about constantly dividing a space as a way to move towards it invokes infinity if a I remember correctly, but of course in reality there is a finite amount of space to move, such as a couple of feet on a sidewalk.

You can do math problems that show someone did an infinite amount of work and I am sure somewhere in chemistry infinity has popped up:D I think more or less its a product of math and not so necessarily reality. As far as infinite infinities go, I don’t really understand what you mean. I am sure such exists in math but I don’t know the correct technical reality of such, as in nature I don’t know if infinite forms can appear from chaos say for how a snowflake may come to look for example taking into account any possible geometry or structure it could posses, but I don’t really know if those would be the same concepts, chaos theory and infinity that is. Not to say its chaos theory behind the variance of snowflake appearance, just that I don’t understand the role of infinity in chaos theory.

Perhaps something not so extreme would

I think attempting to "license" biology will utterly fail. People coming from biology to say medical fields already have to pass rigorous certifications. Biology is not just physics or chemistry, its both plus even more really. It would be impossible I think to certify a person on every single real facet of biological study I would think. I am not trying to put biology on some large scale master of sciences or anything, its just the reality of it. A person can spend an enormous period of time studying even one species of insect.

Well, straight away you have a semantic problem. Axioms, by their very nature are not "derived" from anything. And what does 2(2) signify?Huh?Once again, you misunderstand the meaning of the word "axiom" - axioms are, by definition, un-discoverable i.e. stand-alone. No, the Planck constant is just that - a constant that makes certain equations in science fit the data. This is almost the opposite of being an axiom. I'm guessing that some purists might even call it a fudge (I read that some did in the early 1900's)

2(2)=4 or it should right? I am sorry if I did not add the multiplicative symbol directly. Here, 2 x (2).

I know axioms are unquestioned assumptions and or truths used for all intensive purposes. I am simply wondering if instead we submitted what we do know now about stuff as those axioms into a language like mathematics what it would look like or if it could function, that is all. Such as a symbol for conservation of energy for instance like how we would use a / for division.

What do you think about the idea of a logical language like mathematics with similar structure even buts its axioms and operators are derived from natural reality or nature. Such as how you have a multiplication function such as x, times, or 2(2) you would have such a structure for conservation of energy? I know that such are derived from use of math, but such themselves or natural phenomena or physical laws about the reality around us themselves are not stand alone axioms for use in math. I think a good example in the Planck constant, or reduced Planck constant. Its pretty much an axiom and its derived from reality around us or discovered in a sense.

Do you think that if enough time and people were to work on something like that we could have an entirely new math language with axioms derived from in a pure sense nothing but nature? Such as no more division, multiplication and so on, but more or less just how nature actually works modeled into math via axioms?

I like equations. They are easy to see in action and remember. If you per say mean for everything, well then it varies for me, but if you just mean math then yes I prefer just equations.

I personally consider also the virus to be life. I think I understand where you are coming from. I think a prime example in the history of science that is overlooked is prior to the discovery of life at underwater vents or vent communities as commonly denoted such was thought impossible for the existence of life. I don’t think life yet has a finite definition that covers every possibility. I think another part of the issue is that you have people behind the definitions of such things. What I mean by this is quite possibly that the current means of life on earth as we understand it is all we have really in which to gauge life. Now knowing that life can come to survive and become persistent or tenacious even in toxic/nuclear waste I have a hard time personally thinking of what the bounds are to life and or what it can or cant be or what it requires, such as what particular molecular structures or energetics of such or what not. I don’t even know what environments life can or cant survive in. I really think basically that life as we know it in current form is really what we attribute life to being and only being able to be at large. I think this is why the virus blurs such lines and gives people trouble in classifying it.

I'm a biochem major, so my course work is a bit more rigorous then the bio majors as my school. Except the math (biochem majors don't need to take stat) But we do get plenty of math in calculus and physics courses.

 

And I think the idea is that your going to have to take stat classes in grad school, so we don't need it know??

That’s a solid point on what you plan to actually study or do. Biochem from what I understand differs greatly from say a traditional biology program. Most undergrad biology programs have a year of general biology, then courses on genetics, cell biology, developmental biology, ecology and evolution. I don’t think much of those are present in a typical biochem program save maybe genetics and general biology as biology orientated classes.

Even a general biology degree typically requires anymore almost two years of solid chemistry anymore, such as a general chemistry sequence and then a coupled of courses on organic chemistry. Biology has many different fields though, from more large scale or ecological orientated programs such as environmental biology, to more discrete programs if you will like biochem or molecular biology.

Most highly interdisciplinary fields like biophysics or structural biology I don’t happen to think are taught really as programs at an undergrad level typically, nor is ecology for that matter.

The university that I will be going to has two math routes that you select from for the biology program. One is one calculus or calc 1 followed by two courses in statistics, or the other route is calc 1 and 2 followed by one course in statistics.

I don’t know if it matters as much as per say what program you happen to be going into. Say for molecular biology it would probably help to know more math then say other fields of biology. One reason biology programs may lack is simply funding. I mean what are the chances that many biology programs in some states have huge areas of biodiversity in which to go and do field studies? On that note how many biology programs have large wings or funding put into areas like genetics or biotechnology/bioinformatics. None of this stuff is cheap. For instance I know at some places you can take an aquatic ecology class and actually get to see first hand the topics, at other places aquatic ecology is limited to freshwater environments or even worse nothing but coursework in a class.

Lastly biology programs or the field itself is not just physics or chemistry for a reason, much like a geology program. I think this needs to be taken into consideration. One prime example I think is the state of Montana. For instance they have huge areas of basically uninhabited by human lands that are stocked with local fauna and flora. You can even get to see such animals as a bear if you want in the wild. I think some biology student in say Los Angeles California would be hard pressed for such. Also some universities invest large amounts of cash again into some of the more latest technology for say a molecular program while others don’t. I mean its one thing if your class wants you to mix X with Y and study Z or bounce a ball in various ways or off of various mediums, its another when your topic might be a thousand pound land mammal with dynamic behavior or a 20 mile long string of codons.

Does your biology cease to function if you move to the left? How about five minutes from now?

I think I understand what you mean, but that really does not answer my question. What is the point for a timeline. I mean I can observe time, but does my foot also observe it because I am? Or more to the point, is each atom of my being on the same timeline as I am? I mean relative to me and all of that QM stuff its quite boggling to say the least from by position on things. Such as say I am in a car with some other people, if I were to instantly travel backwards in time would I smash into the car with infinite force? Would me and the car somehow separate into some other universe? So that means if I grab someone, they should also have to experience such right? If it were possible is all.

The list really could go on.

What I would like to know would be the impact on a living organism of such travels. I mean if you were to time travel backwards in time, I don’t see how that could take the universe with you, and not to get into the idea of multiple universes, would you age in reverse, or would your biology even work anymore? Same with traveling into the future, or what not. I mean from the concept of the observer it would seem to apply really timelines for every single even subatomic or other entity in the universe to some extent.

Is'nt marujuana illegal or something?

The gravity of such laws depend on the state really. In Texas a man was giving like 30+ years for a minor possession, I think like a gram while in some states you wont go to jail unless you have over an ounce on your person.

I don’t know why but I have known people who were seriously sick, not dying of course and even one inhalation of marijuana allowed them to feel better, eat and even sleep comfortably for a period of time.

As for alcohol not to be completely disgusting to any viewers but I think going to a gentlemen’s club is the best way to end a hangover> :D

I don’t know of many physical actions the body performs that uses just one thing or perfect isolation of such in anatomy. One thing that always made me laugh were guys that would just work out pecs, or do bench presses. It makes you very prone to serious injury doing routine things in your life. If you look out on the net you might even be able to find nasty pics of such injuries…

I think it was most likely a combinatorial feat that managed the construction of such things. such as existing technologies/methodologies with say maybe 400+ horses pulling it with maybe people pushing. IT was a different culture and subsequently it did not have as many subterfuges as today does. Something like this building would have been a spectacle of high gravity/importance in production.

Hey, thanks for the reply I did not think I was going to get one.

Firstly it is just an idea, I don’t actually think this is what occurred, I have no idea overall what occurred;)

I also do not know another good term to use in place of natural selection for just the purpose of the thread, would dynamic environmental selection work better? or environmental based dynamic selection?

As for my idea I just don’t see how if the QM level could not stabilize to some degree how any regular large scale effects could come to exist on a regular scale, such as a planet or a galaxy or any particular particle or element. If per say someone can show me where to draw the line for sure as to the effects or role of QM that would kill the whole idea instantly for me surely. Yet QM is random to some extent and I don’t know that exact bounds of such randomness or the relationship QM shares with any relative environment at any giving time.

I don’t have the math skills to chop the idea up into existing physics lingo. I have been trying to get there a little bit slowly. I like the Fourier series with waveforms but I am far off from actually being able to work with such, plus I don’t think I would be able to sneak in a years worth of QM at university.

I have trouble thinking of time as in clocks, clocks are simply made, I guess what we are recording is the relativity of things in certain regular words, such as it takes X time to reach mars and so on. I still think its more or less a field effect but why the differentiation really? I mean physics I think states its gravity but yet no consensus exactly what that is or where it comes from truly. Plus the whole dark energy/matter thing really buggers me out. I know any physics educated people that probably read this are busting up but I don’t posses that education so I would hope they would chime in.

Race is a flimsy concept. What is the true genetic variation of Germany to Poland by chance, and does any particular phenotypic concentration reflect anything that has to do with such? I mean the human genome is just that, or else needing corrective eyewear is racially what? I mean do we make drugs for say a particular tribe of people, or even a state? Personally I can only see such drugs working for outstanding traits, such as sickle cell, not a "race". That term has about as much meaning really in science as saying gravity does not exist. I mean I can breed with any female of any race right? So what’s that say about the human genome.

Its targeted product placement, not science. Saying something genetic is racial should mean I cant ever get it, nor could any offspring I could produce with any “race”, and lastly racial differences are super flimsy compared to the biological difference, or dimorphism between sexes.

This is a good idea and I hope more will participate.

Before I post I don’t know if I would back the geo based energy strategies to much. Firstly I don’t know what diverting that energy would mean geologically, and second it could just become an avenue to drill anywhere for other things also, not just thermal energy.

Here are some links of interest to the topic at hand.

http://www.foresight.org/Conference/AdvNano2004/Abstracts/Abdel-Fattah/index.html

Its about the application of nano based materials for environmental application. Nano based technologies also hold possible ill consequence factors for environmental issues also.

http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/

This link is on a hopeful trend in greener building construction. From materials used to internal atmosphere regulation and many other facets of modern building construction that can be conducted in a green manner, it also pertains to energy use by such buildings.

http://www.californiasolarcenter.org/solareclips/2002.01/20020115-2.html

This link and the following one is on the application of photosynthesis to solar power technologies, which is actual managed would greatly enhance solar powers ability to power anything really.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Solar-Power-Breakthrough-Flexible-Panels-28489.shtml

This is the following link on photosynthesis based solar power technology infused with some nanotechnology.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm

This link mostly reflects what I think is a positive behavioral strategy towards energy use. It deals directly with energy consumption issues.

I don't care about understanding evolution. I want the scientists to get going with the studies of DNA. Obvisiously your against animal testing? Here is a novel idea. Why don't they try both at the same time. I'll be happy and you'll be semi-happy.

 

You know that mice are quite plentiful. They breed like rabbits only worse.

I don’t really think you can have one without the other, DNA and evolution that is. I am not against animal testing, but I mean if you support trying to turn a mouse into a dragon that’s fine I guess...

I don’t plan to do any animal testing actually, its not the field of biology I am interested in. Plus the reality is there are also plenty of humans, but I think it would be easy to see the outrage if we started blasting them with chemicals looking for signs of cancer, that being said I don’t care to inflict pain for the sake of not even knowing what I am doing in the first place, I think that’s how we got the Iraq war. Even understanding how DNA works in one microbe does not automatically denote that same understanding to the next, I don’t know how to get any more simple on that one. Simple example, just look at the variance in people.

Trying to just do biology from a DNA only angle is not only silly its profoundly dumb really, and its never going to get anywhere and any progress it does make will be retarded by such a view and slow. I mean if we could just do DNA alone don’t you think we would already be doing that at levels much higher then what we are now? Understanding evolution is prime in the understanding of genetics, its quite simple really.

foodchain, Just think of humans as a more advanced sort of predator that doesn't necessarily derive nutrition from its prey. We're all part of nature, and, like kittens, we sometimes play with our prey for educational reasons.

We are relative to the environment, in a few hundred years we could easily also be extinct.

You don't always need a goal you can try just discovering something. Like rutherford didn't ever expect to find the nucleus of an atom. He did an experiment with what he tought would have a set result. It didn't do what he thought it would. When I was 8 I took water and oil. I knew what they would do, so I took sugar and poured it in to the combination. I thought that the sugar molecules would just stay a the top or just sink through it in little bits. It didn't. Try doing it. I still think it looks cool. I'm just saying use a little knowledge and try it on a few mice. See what happens. Unless your the type that are against animal testing entirely. If you are there is a discussion for that.

Mice have a brain or CNS, are actually quite intelligent and can even read moods of a human. Thusly they can suffer, and for what its worth I have a little but to much empathy to really want to do that for the sole purpose of a garage experiment. Microbes on the other hand don’t share in this really, so for what its worth its not like torture really. Plus microbes are not as heavy in complexity as say a mouse and react faster to changing environments, which for the purpose of selection experiments or messing with dna period I think would be faster. Plus starting and microbes and following phylogenics I think would be the best way to understand evolution and its various mechanisms, thusly I think it would help genetics greatly. Everyone wants to focus directly on nothing more then DNA to explain everything, while it has a very profound place in biology and life it surely is not everything which is already documented.

A bit of confusion I see. There is no typical liberal as there might be more on average a typical conservative. See you can have liberal hippy types, which are really just hippies, then you can have another type of liberal like the metrosexual type in cities, the list could go on. Conservatives on the other hand seem to be on average more of the same mold. You can even find variation in liberal to conservative in regards to religious beliefs, such as homosexuals that attend church to comparison to other conservative types you might find at some gathering of evangelicals. Also, libertarian conservatives are another branch of conservative thought, and some liberals are not anti gun to boot, so its not an easy or decisive cut off on what is what.

Typically though the main difference in the two is time and situation dependent. Such as republicans and democrats of say sixty years ago are nothing compared to what they are today.

ON average I would state a good chunk of modern day liberalism is a very diversified group of people, much like modern conservatism. You can find a gross amount of conservatives simply being conservative because they want to retain there position and power or status, nothing more, or basically you can also find a giant cult of very religious conservative types in which change is the product of satans work. You can also find liberals that basically would like to emplace for all intensive purposes communism and happen to be rather out of touch with reality, its not cut and dry.

ON average I don’t know if it rates to intelligence as much as it simply rates to worldview. It would be very easy to say that the middle east is the bastion of what conservative thought is all about in many regards, or you will not find progressive liberal thinking in Iran period. Liberalism for what its worth is not known for being super aggressive warmongering, or hating on people for difference for the most part, though of course exceptions exist. I think really that is the prime difference, such as bush wanting to ban same sex marriage for various reasons that its the anti christ in short and liberals not being exactly nice to the concept but at the same time allowing a more open atmosphere to exist on the issue, that’s really the only real difference in my opinion of the two. They both produce crappy results most the time and of course both happen to be profoundly dumb for the most part. You can see an easy divide in regards to how environmental issues are handled by both groups for another example.

Well that’s my two cents on the topic anyways.

I think another nifty thing could be attempting to match various vocalizations organisms make to specific organisms.

Where is the spacetime coordinates for "now" ?

Well I would think that such would be the entirety of the universe right now if it could be instantly frozen or taken a snapshot of. I think a second into the future would be all that as one second passes, universe time:eek: would be the coordinates for that future. I thusly think the past would be the coordinates of everything in the universe, again universe time one second ago. Universe time I know does not exist I am just thinking of one clock for the whole universe to compare to.

Yeah, I see what your saying. However, I bet the DNA was similiar in structure if they transfer DNA. They should try transfering DNA to an intelligent animal and observe its habits.

I support the start small or ground up thinking. Such as working with microbes until mastery then the next level. I don’t support however just grabbing say a tiger and seeing what changing various codons will produce. I am sure its possible to fully realize what genetics can hold, heck maybe even eternal life is possible there, but it also holds an equally disturbing side effect of how do you get there from here? To the reality that environment is pretty meshed into the whole thing. I know the concept of morality has driving most research like that out of America, but from what I understood as soon as cloning for instance was realized it was Clinton that put a ban on any attempts at human versions and started a large scale mess of it all. Cloning as predicted by botanists of all things also did not produce exact copies, such was evident in various ways.

I am sure in time a large degree of life will be purely designer, if not biology and entire ecosystems being synthetic, but in many ways the relationship of say a genome to the various phenotypes possible from it is a culmination of various complexities is currently lacking absolute understanding, from reproduction to just about anything else. So yes, I do support some degree of control on simply just changing codons for the time being.

Do you for instance know what an aye-aye is? Its a very primitive primate species on the verge of extinction. They look very weird to say the least and from looking at various images it would seem as if the white guard hairs come in before other aspects. It also has a very weird middle finger "perfectly" suited for how it eats. Basically its another example of natural selection at work, and I think understanding that relationship to a genome and various phenotypes really needs to be understood before true genetic studies will make any real serious leaps.

6. Make a internet site sob story asking for donations

5. Get a fake limb and beg for money on the street

4. buy stuff then sell it on ebay at double the price

3. Steal peoples pets then hold them for ransom

2. get fake documentation that you graduated from Harvard

1. start a religion

Next, top ten ways reasons why we should over populate.