Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dmitri" data-source="post: 27056" data-attributes="member: 397"><p><strong>Re: Treeees!!!</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are right, there must have been more of a context to it. <span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">You may like Fred Hoyle?s ?The Intelligent Universe?. I do not have it handy now; I gave it to my fellow-worker to read. Hoyle explores, in particular, social aspects of the desecration. I am not strong at those. I love the book and think Hoyle was a great scientist. On top of his developments in physics and cosmology he gave us his beautiful and coherent worldview, which we are still a long way from fully appreciating. BTW, in his ?Mathematics of Evolution? he concludes, like you did: ?And the outcome of the essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either soup or potatoes. Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.? One can skip math in this book without losing the line, because he explains every step in the argument. I still think the Darwinian theory is correct at a negligible scale, because the mutation rate Hoyle assumes is unrealistically low, 0.3 mutations per 3 billion base pair genome per generation: so that the selection has some material to play with. The thing is most mutations are not random, but this is another story.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span>I practically concluded that selection on random variation cannot work, mostly based on the argument of the one vs. many genes model, which I described in my previous blog. Then I read about this in Spetner?s ?Not by Chance? and Hoyle?s ?Mathematics of Evolution?. Now I consider panspermia as a plausible hypothesis. The idea is old, it was developed by ancient Greeks. Now it is gaining force as new evidence comes to play. The idea of the origin on earth BTW was rejected by Orgel (who was #1 in testing organic origin for many years) and Crick (co-author of DNA structure discovery). Good site on panspermia is at <a href="http://www.panspermia.org/" target="_blank">http://www.panspermia.org/</a> Wickramasinghe pioneers the field. Hoyle and he came to understanding of life forms on earth as being part of an open system, which probably encompasses all Universe. They proved, by comparing spectra of different substances, that interstellar clouds consist of enormous masses of frozen bacteria that are spread all over the Universe. Besides, there is no particular sense to assume that we are the only intelligent creatures in the world (this is where, I guess, I disagree with fundamentalists). This is contrary to the principle of continuum. I hope to contribute to testing the idea of panspermia in several years. Circumstantial evidence is already being collected and reflected on in the peer-review Astrobiology magazine. NASA, in particular, spends good money on this line of research. As to "evolutionary biology" as it was officially defined, nowadays it is a field for demagogues mostly. Serious biologists in molecular or cell biology do not talk about it. </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 10px">Most people do not know how DNA is organized and structured. It forms a highly organized complex with hundreds of different regulatory and structural proteins. This is a state-of-the-art complex, with its numerous laws of behavior and differential composition at all levels of compaction, starting from 10nm fiber to 300nm higher order of compaction. It folds and unfolds at transcription; it changes its shape dramatically throughout cell cycle, it looks down on replication errors (which have been called the material of evolution) because it has a proofreading mechanism that corrects practically all errors. One out of 100, 000, 000 gets away uncorrected: this is one letter out of 20 large volumes of 500 pages each. A hack of a reading proof this is. Now, this one out of a 100 million is the one that leads evolution they say. I should say, considering the delicate structure of chromatin, get yourself a heavy hammer, go smash on the walls of a museum and see what you improve this way. </span></span></span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p>~Dmitri</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dmitri, post: 27056, member: 397"] [b]Re: Treeees!!![/b] You are right, there must have been more of a context to it. [font=Verdana]You may like Fred Hoyle?s ?The Intelligent Universe?. I do not have it handy now; I gave it to my fellow-worker to read. Hoyle explores, in particular, social aspects of the desecration. I am not strong at those. I love the book and think Hoyle was a great scientist. On top of his developments in physics and cosmology he gave us his beautiful and coherent worldview, which we are still a long way from fully appreciating. BTW, in his ?Mathematics of Evolution? he concludes, like you did: ?And the outcome of the essay? Well as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits, not from either soup or potatoes. Where they came from in the first place is a problem yet to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.? One can skip math in this book without losing the line, because he explains every step in the argument. I still think the Darwinian theory is correct at a negligible scale, because the mutation rate Hoyle assumes is unrealistically low, 0.3 mutations per 3 billion base pair genome per generation: so that the selection has some material to play with. The thing is most mutations are not random, but this is another story. [/font]I practically concluded that selection on random variation cannot work, mostly based on the argument of the one vs. many genes model, which I described in my previous blog. Then I read about this in Spetner?s ?Not by Chance? and Hoyle?s ?Mathematics of Evolution?. Now I consider panspermia as a plausible hypothesis. The idea is old, it was developed by ancient Greeks. Now it is gaining force as new evidence comes to play. The idea of the origin on earth BTW was rejected by Orgel (who was #1 in testing organic origin for many years) and Crick (co-author of DNA structure discovery). Good site on panspermia is at [url=http://www.panspermia.org/]http://www.panspermia.org/[/url] Wickramasinghe pioneers the field. Hoyle and he came to understanding of life forms on earth as being part of an open system, which probably encompasses all Universe. They proved, by comparing spectra of different substances, that interstellar clouds consist of enormous masses of frozen bacteria that are spread all over the Universe. Besides, there is no particular sense to assume that we are the only intelligent creatures in the world (this is where, I guess, I disagree with fundamentalists). This is contrary to the principle of continuum. I hope to contribute to testing the idea of panspermia in several years. Circumstantial evidence is already being collected and reflected on in the peer-review Astrobiology magazine. NASA, in particular, spends good money on this line of research. As to "evolutionary biology" as it was officially defined, nowadays it is a field for demagogues mostly. Serious biologists in molecular or cell biology do not talk about it. [color=black][font=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]Most people do not know how DNA is organized and structured. It forms a highly organized complex with hundreds of different regulatory and structural proteins. This is a state-of-the-art complex, with its numerous laws of behavior and differential composition at all levels of compaction, starting from 10nm fiber to 300nm higher order of compaction. It folds and unfolds at transcription; it changes its shape dramatically throughout cell cycle, it looks down on replication errors (which have been called the material of evolution) because it has a proofreading mechanism that corrects practically all errors. One out of 100, 000, 000 gets away uncorrected: this is one letter out of 20 large volumes of 500 pages each. A hack of a reading proof this is. Now, this one out of a 100 million is the one that leads evolution they say. I should say, considering the delicate structure of chromatin, get yourself a heavy hammer, go smash on the walls of a museum and see what you improve this way. [/SIZE][/font][/color][font=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][/size][/font][SIZE=2][/SIZE] ~Dmitri [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top