Buddhism, Hindus, God, Fate and Khukuris
- Thread starter munk
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2001
- Messages
- 20,978
Rusty = that has saved my neck on more occasions than I care to specify!
eik = response forthcoming
eik = response forthcoming
Eikverang, I was glad to read your last post. Way to go. With people in general, and the web in particular, it is common to have a conversation with the sole goal of determining winners and losers. I hate that mind set, because no one learns a thing. I am a, "pool our resources guy".
munk
munk
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
Eik:
Perhaps things should slow down a bit here, so more carefully considered responses may be given. Especially since you seem to be responding to everyone! (That's not bad, it's just a fact that you are writing the most here).
"I am not sure what you mean here. Munk talks about one thing and you answer with another. I don't know if it was your intention or if you don't have all tings clear on this subject.
You have mentioned one of the mechanisms of how variation arises and gives rise to new adaptations. Munk asked about the time aspect for selection to cull old adaptations."
This was munk's question:
"All populations started from hunter gatherer. What DNA do you think lost in the transition from that to 'modern' society? You think it just goes away in 100 years of non use? 500? "
He asks about DNA being lost? I believe that I was on topic to point out that essentially, there is a difference between being "lost" and not being expressed, and that little is thought to be lost. Is it irrelevant that a single regulatory gene ("switch") control the expression of a much larger chunk of DNA and that this can occur in an instant compared to the time required for the evolution of the genes under it's control?
Regulatory genes that cause others to be expressed are "turned on" and "turned off" all the time during the lifetime of an organism. DNA and the transcription of parts of it's "message" does a LOT more than give rise to traits and adaptations in subsequent generations.
YOU assumed that an adaptation (between generations) was the issue. In effect, you wrapped a paradigm around the issue and attacked my response because it didn't fit. I don't know what munk thought regarding the "mechanism" of DNA's role, he didn't say. I think he has a point, in that you may appear to be more confrontational than you desire. You may be also too quick to view everything under the lens of your speciality (as it exists where you study
).
Lots of undefined terms floating around in this discussion. For instance, say that due to the pressures of a particular locale, individuals in a population of organisms up-regulate a few neuro-transmitters to higher levels than another population in a different local. This is a response of the individuals of the population, within one generation. In common parlance, this would be described as "adaptation". That is clearly not what is meant by adaptation in the evolutionary sense. I don't know what the correct, precise term for this change in an individual would be for you.
[Example: different levels of "stress hormones" and neurotransmitters between top-ranking baboon and lower members. Remove dominant male, and new one takes the top position, with subtle but detectable changes in biochemistry]. To rephrase, "adaptive behavior" (and even mood, perception) often has a biochemical basis that is regulated on a very short time scale by the expression of proteins encoded by DNA.
Part of the problem is that often, common terms are co-opted by scientists and given (necessarly) very precise and limited meanings. Like most people, scientists can be lazy, or not agree among themselves on new vocabulary, so this is the easy solution. This gives rise to problems in discussions between specialists and others. Imagine a conversation between a mathematician and a auto mechanic concerning manifolds! It also may provide an illusion of greater accesability to the uninitiated if common terms are used instead of "jargon". To confuse things further, the usage of such terms often is refined or changed by the scientists themselves as the science grows or may be under active debate. Let's all use care if the discussion is to have any meaning.
Perhaps things should slow down a bit here, so more carefully considered responses may be given. Especially since you seem to be responding to everyone! (That's not bad, it's just a fact that you are writing the most here).
"I am not sure what you mean here. Munk talks about one thing and you answer with another. I don't know if it was your intention or if you don't have all tings clear on this subject.
You have mentioned one of the mechanisms of how variation arises and gives rise to new adaptations. Munk asked about the time aspect for selection to cull old adaptations."
This was munk's question:
"All populations started from hunter gatherer. What DNA do you think lost in the transition from that to 'modern' society? You think it just goes away in 100 years of non use? 500? "
He asks about DNA being lost? I believe that I was on topic to point out that essentially, there is a difference between being "lost" and not being expressed, and that little is thought to be lost. Is it irrelevant that a single regulatory gene ("switch") control the expression of a much larger chunk of DNA and that this can occur in an instant compared to the time required for the evolution of the genes under it's control?
Regulatory genes that cause others to be expressed are "turned on" and "turned off" all the time during the lifetime of an organism. DNA and the transcription of parts of it's "message" does a LOT more than give rise to traits and adaptations in subsequent generations.
YOU assumed that an adaptation (between generations) was the issue. In effect, you wrapped a paradigm around the issue and attacked my response because it didn't fit. I don't know what munk thought regarding the "mechanism" of DNA's role, he didn't say. I think he has a point, in that you may appear to be more confrontational than you desire. You may be also too quick to view everything under the lens of your speciality (as it exists where you study
). Lots of undefined terms floating around in this discussion. For instance, say that due to the pressures of a particular locale, individuals in a population of organisms up-regulate a few neuro-transmitters to higher levels than another population in a different local. This is a response of the individuals of the population, within one generation. In common parlance, this would be described as "adaptation". That is clearly not what is meant by adaptation in the evolutionary sense. I don't know what the correct, precise term for this change in an individual would be for you.
[Example: different levels of "stress hormones" and neurotransmitters between top-ranking baboon and lower members. Remove dominant male, and new one takes the top position, with subtle but detectable changes in biochemistry]. To rephrase, "adaptive behavior" (and even mood, perception) often has a biochemical basis that is regulated on a very short time scale by the expression of proteins encoded by DNA.
Part of the problem is that often, common terms are co-opted by scientists and given (necessarly) very precise and limited meanings. Like most people, scientists can be lazy, or not agree among themselves on new vocabulary, so this is the easy solution. This gives rise to problems in discussions between specialists and others. Imagine a conversation between a mathematician and a auto mechanic concerning manifolds! It also may provide an illusion of greater accesability to the uninitiated if common terms are used instead of "jargon". To confuse things further, the usage of such terms often is refined or changed by the scientists themselves as the science grows or may be under active debate. Let's all use care if the discussion is to have any meaning.
- Joined
- May 30, 2002
- Messages
- 374
Rusty:
Thanks, understood, and I will learn to limit myself.
Pendentive:
Never mind answering me, unless you desire it very much yourself (feel free to do so but don't feel forced to do so) (not just because of me you know). I think Firkin is right. This is has become a thread for me and a few others. Perhaps it would be best to skip to something more interesting for the rest of the people here?
Munk:
Allright, but your first reaction really makes me wonder what you think about me.
Firkin:
Yes, you are absolutely right. I need to slow down on my hyperactivity. My activity level is about to kill this thread.
About your regulatory genes.
I misunderstood your answer to Munk and thought you meant parasitic DNA; "a lot of "obsolete" DNA hanging around". You had written it a bit cryptic you know. So my fitting of a paradigm was just a tool to try to bring some structure to it.
Regulatory genes is one important point. But then again, how much shall we try to cover here? Regulatory genes and environmentally induced baboon behaviour is just the beginning of writing a 500 pages long textbook about this stuff! (Welcome to the science fools club, a club for just you and me Firkin!).
The things you say about me being more confrontive than I desire and applying my science on everything here is true. I now realize that this is not the place for this style. I will change it, thanks to your feedback.
Ok, that's all folks!
Thanks, understood, and I will learn to limit myself.
Pendentive:
Never mind answering me, unless you desire it very much yourself (feel free to do so but don't feel forced to do so) (not just because of me you know). I think Firkin is right. This is has become a thread for me and a few others. Perhaps it would be best to skip to something more interesting for the rest of the people here?
Munk:
Allright, but your first reaction really makes me wonder what you think about me.
Firkin:
Yes, you are absolutely right. I need to slow down on my hyperactivity. My activity level is about to kill this thread.
About your regulatory genes.
I misunderstood your answer to Munk and thought you meant parasitic DNA; "a lot of "obsolete" DNA hanging around". You had written it a bit cryptic you know. So my fitting of a paradigm was just a tool to try to bring some structure to it.
Regulatory genes is one important point. But then again, how much shall we try to cover here? Regulatory genes and environmentally induced baboon behaviour is just the beginning of writing a 500 pages long textbook about this stuff! (Welcome to the science fools club
, a club for just you and me Firkin!). The things you say about me being more confrontive than I desire and applying my science on everything here is true. I now realize that this is not the place for this style. I will change it, thanks to your feedback.
Ok, that's all folks!
Eikerverang, what I think about you? Nothing there a few more years of pain won't fix.
I never give up on someone who shows they can listen.
The things you say about me being more confrontive than I desire and applying my science on everything here is true. I now realize that this is not the place for this style. I will change it, thanks to your feedback. >>> Eik to Firkin
It is not your knowledge which is rebuffed, but your ears. If you were just another pipsqueak you'd have drawn yourself into a academic cocoon and rationalized your behavior. I am impressed you did not.
Very few people when confronted take the opportunity. This has become a win-win situation for all of us.
munk
I never give up on someone who shows they can listen.
The things you say about me being more confrontive than I desire and applying my science on everything here is true. I now realize that this is not the place for this style. I will change it, thanks to your feedback. >>> Eik to Firkin
It is not your knowledge which is rebuffed, but your ears. If you were just another pipsqueak you'd have drawn yourself into a academic cocoon and rationalized your behavior. I am impressed you did not.
Very few people when confronted take the opportunity. This has become a win-win situation for all of us.
munk
- Joined
- Mar 5, 1999
- Messages
- 34,096
A thread like this that can survive is generally a win-win for everybody.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
Eikerværing:
Well done! That takes courage.
RE: Hyperactivity--Haste makes (sometimes voluminous) waste. Not quite fair either, with you feeling compelled to answer a multitude of posts on such a topic(s) each day. Partly also my fault, I tried to counter what appeared to be academic myopia by dumping a few "science/philosphy" paradoxes on you hoping to knock you out of a rut.
One can use the perspective afforded by science training to view things in new or alternate ways, or one can try to bend everything to fit within a particular subspecialty. I think the former is more "scientific" and the later more "religious".
RE: regulatory genes and environmentally induced baboon behavior--I've no intent to further pursue those specific topics. I'd hoped to just point out that trait gone isn't DNA gone. Concrete examples were chosen to illustrate a point to you. That you say it's worthy of 500 pages shows that's been done. Pat answers regarding DNA and behavior/perception are probably wrong. With care,though, it should be possible to have an ordinary conversation about them without invoking such details.
Return to topic: The genome (whole) DNA message seems to contain a bunch of stuff that's not used. What is used, varies in the frequency of use. The cell contains machinery that "reads" the parts of the DNA and things happen. Some "instructions" are read and executed only for a short time, like during limb devopment in an embryo. A lot of stuff is switched on at puberty. Some happen many,many times a day and lead to things like fine-tune the amounts of hormones or brain transmitters in organs or brain areas. Some of these are subject to environmental influence. It is certainly likely that locating an urban human to a wilderness environment will change the fine-tuning, including mood and perception (we're talking more than just being pissed about the relocation).
He'll react differently and feel differently about the wilderness than before. Fire will become particularly interesting.Finding a few berries will now alter his brain chemistry, leading elation or satisfaction not previously evoked by a few berries. Maybe (very speculative!) a few DNA messages will get read that weren't being read before. Or ones that were being read as a child will get read again after many years. Could be particular combinations of messages that is important. Or expression in certain areas of the brain. Such a mechanism as I've attempted to describe has been speculated to make something like "ancestral memory" scientifically plausible. Such a conclusion is quite an extrapolation, and not "mainstream"! Is it in the same category as UFOs or Yeti? Who knows?
Is this why a good camping vacation works?
Well done! That takes courage.
RE: Hyperactivity--Haste makes (sometimes voluminous) waste. Not quite fair either, with you feeling compelled to answer a multitude of posts on such a topic(s) each day. Partly also my fault, I tried to counter what appeared to be academic myopia by dumping a few "science/philosphy" paradoxes on you hoping to knock you out of a rut.
One can use the perspective afforded by science training to view things in new or alternate ways, or one can try to bend everything to fit within a particular subspecialty. I think the former is more "scientific" and the later more "religious".
RE: regulatory genes and environmentally induced baboon behavior--I've no intent to further pursue those specific topics. I'd hoped to just point out that trait gone isn't DNA gone. Concrete examples were chosen to illustrate a point to you. That you say it's worthy of 500 pages shows that's been done. Pat answers regarding DNA and behavior/perception are probably wrong. With care,though, it should be possible to have an ordinary conversation about them without invoking such details.
Return to topic: The genome (whole) DNA message seems to contain a bunch of stuff that's not used. What is used, varies in the frequency of use. The cell contains machinery that "reads" the parts of the DNA and things happen. Some "instructions" are read and executed only for a short time, like during limb devopment in an embryo. A lot of stuff is switched on at puberty. Some happen many,many times a day and lead to things like fine-tune the amounts of hormones or brain transmitters in organs or brain areas. Some of these are subject to environmental influence. It is certainly likely that locating an urban human to a wilderness environment will change the fine-tuning, including mood and perception (we're talking more than just being pissed about the relocation).
He'll react differently and feel differently about the wilderness than before. Fire will become particularly interesting.Finding a few berries will now alter his brain chemistry, leading elation or satisfaction not previously evoked by a few berries. Maybe (very speculative!) a few DNA messages will get read that weren't being read before. Or ones that were being read as a child will get read again after many years. Could be particular combinations of messages that is important. Or expression in certain areas of the brain. Such a mechanism as I've attempted to describe has been speculated to make something like "ancestral memory" scientifically plausible. Such a conclusion is quite an extrapolation, and not "mainstream"! Is it in the same category as UFOs or Yeti? Who knows?
Is this why a good camping vacation works?
I have to add this; we are actually never far from knowledge of God and the Beyond either. When you see clearly,it is as if you have never seen otherwise, and when you cannot see, it is as if that has always been. It is thin the barrior thoughts that keep us from either.
munk
munk
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2001
- Messages
- 20,978
Gravity made me do it!
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
Munk, if you try the refined food product linked below, I bet you can get closer than you want!
It is pricey, but I am certain that for the money, they conveniently supply a quantity adequate for several lifetimes.
http://www.originaljuan.com/product.asp?SKU=1418
No I have not, and will not try this particular product...
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 7,269
you have no idea how much self-control I'm showing by only posting this little fraction of one of the essays that I completely DON'T understand. Seemed a simple question when I posed it to myself. sighs...
here you go:
In his discussion about general relativity, Einstein said that gravity is the same as any other acceleration, except that gravity's acceleration is caused by the curving of space. (2) And this acceleration which is proportional to mass, of course implies that there is a force at work. But it is obvious that mass is not a force. So mass can not perform the work of warping space, and therefore mass itself cannot possibly cause gravity. However, since mass is proportional to gravity, and almost all mass is located in the atomic nucleus, the search for the force which warps space and therefore causes gravity, must begin within the nucleus of atoms"
firkin? there's much much more.
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9902044
Kis
the naked, ignorant-but-clean, mountainman
here you go:
In his discussion about general relativity, Einstein said that gravity is the same as any other acceleration, except that gravity's acceleration is caused by the curving of space. (2) And this acceleration which is proportional to mass, of course implies that there is a force at work. But it is obvious that mass is not a force. So mass can not perform the work of warping space, and therefore mass itself cannot possibly cause gravity. However, since mass is proportional to gravity, and almost all mass is located in the atomic nucleus, the search for the force which warps space and therefore causes gravity, must begin within the nucleus of atoms"
firkin? there's much much more.
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9902044
Kis
the naked, ignorant-but-clean, mountainman
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2001
- Messages
- 1,049
Fir,
Speaking of hot stuff.
I bought some stuff called Pure Cap. 100% pure capiscum(sp?) pepper. Comes in a child-proof container.
No flavor. So hot that I swear it sizzles on the spoon. I've wanted to OD on it before my colonoscopy. Drink it with that nasty ginger-lemon garbage.
Show that myopic ba$tard looking up there what fire retardant equipment is for.
Speaking of hot stuff.
I bought some stuff called Pure Cap. 100% pure capiscum(sp?) pepper. Comes in a child-proof container.
No flavor. So hot that I swear it sizzles on the spoon. I've wanted to OD on it before my colonoscopy. Drink it with that nasty ginger-lemon garbage.
Show that myopic ba$tard looking up there what fire retardant equipment is for.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
Kismet,
Whew, if you're pulling my chain, congrats, you got me! I'll assume your not. this is a long post
I suspect that if you asked a practicing astrophysicist or nuclear physicist to read that article, he would tell you that it was incomprehensible because it was a bunch of gobbledygook tarted up in the language and equations of modern physics. The author claims to have effectively removed the problems of unifying gravitational theory with electromagnetic theory. Last I heard this was still a major problem for modern physics.
I lack the mathematical skills and apptitude, not to mention knowledge of this area of physics to tell you what is exactly incorrect. I do know enough elementary modern physics (atomic, molecular structure) to say concepts like quantum spin and nuclear angular momentum are highly abstract concepts and any description of them in ordinary terms is very problematic. They may be viewed as results that were thrust upon physicists as the full ramifications of the best performing mathematical constructs that seemed to model this aspect of Nature were explored. They learned to live with them and expand upon them. Sometimes these concepts can be well-approximated or discussed within the realm of classical physics and even said to interact directly with it. This is most true of large collections of particles--net effect of behavior of the group. Generally, the smaller you get, the stranger things get. Inside a nucleus is strange indeed. If an electron being a wave and a particle at the same time bugs you, this stuff probably isn't for you.
I do note that a "mainstream" discussion of gravity will likely appear to be about as impossible to really understand without understanding the mathematics.It is for me anyway. The following, excerpted from your link,
"Since all of space is interconnected, this slight contraction of space within the nucleus, would spread out within the volume of the atom. And since the nuclear diameter is so much smaller than the atomic diameter, this contraction of the nuclear volume would be diluted within the atom by its much larger volume, and then would be radiated into the space surrounding the atom."
Radiation of a contraction into empty space? This is pretty absurd, even considering the obtuseness textual descriptions of physics can reach. If he doesn't mean space-time curvature (he throws out lots of other buzzwords), sounds like a good case for a particle, analagous to a photon, i.e. graviton to propagate the force--forgot, he's saying we don't need them.
But, I can't say for sure, maybe the guy IS an unkown genius laboring in obscurity. He's surely smart and hard-working if he understands the things he mentions. Nearly all the references cited appear to be textbooks, or popular volumes for the educated layman. Hardly expected for ground-breaking work that solves a major problem of modern physics. The fact that I couldn't find out anything about him on the site is also suspect. Sounds like academic snobbery, but I expect a "pedigree" for my dentist that verifies his understanding of the concepts/tools he uses, why not a pedigree that verifies understanding of the tools of physics that this person claims to use to explain gravity? There are some good things about the peer-review/academic accredation system. At first glance, I'd say he's likely to be in the same league as those who claim to have generated unlimited power based upon the work of Tesla. Lots of garbage on the net. Some of the books he uses as references may help to satisfy your curiosity though, I recognize some of the authors as respected physicists. They should provide some idea of gravitational theory--this guy is trying to make gravitational theory fully compatable with other aspects of physics, maybe really what you want anyway.
Whoops! meant to say "maybe NOT really what you want..."
Whew, if you're pulling my chain, congrats, you got me! I'll assume your not. this is a long post
I suspect that if you asked a practicing astrophysicist or nuclear physicist to read that article, he would tell you that it was incomprehensible because it was a bunch of gobbledygook tarted up in the language and equations of modern physics. The author claims to have effectively removed the problems of unifying gravitational theory with electromagnetic theory. Last I heard this was still a major problem for modern physics.
I lack the mathematical skills and apptitude, not to mention knowledge of this area of physics to tell you what is exactly incorrect. I do know enough elementary modern physics (atomic, molecular structure) to say concepts like quantum spin and nuclear angular momentum are highly abstract concepts and any description of them in ordinary terms is very problematic. They may be viewed as results that were thrust upon physicists as the full ramifications of the best performing mathematical constructs that seemed to model this aspect of Nature were explored. They learned to live with them and expand upon them. Sometimes these concepts can be well-approximated or discussed within the realm of classical physics and even said to interact directly with it. This is most true of large collections of particles--net effect of behavior of the group. Generally, the smaller you get, the stranger things get. Inside a nucleus is strange indeed. If an electron being a wave and a particle at the same time bugs you, this stuff probably isn't for you.
I do note that a "mainstream" discussion of gravity will likely appear to be about as impossible to really understand without understanding the mathematics.It is for me anyway. The following, excerpted from your link,
"Since all of space is interconnected, this slight contraction of space within the nucleus, would spread out within the volume of the atom. And since the nuclear diameter is so much smaller than the atomic diameter, this contraction of the nuclear volume would be diluted within the atom by its much larger volume, and then would be radiated into the space surrounding the atom."
Radiation of a contraction into empty space? This is pretty absurd, even considering the obtuseness textual descriptions of physics can reach. If he doesn't mean space-time curvature (he throws out lots of other buzzwords), sounds like a good case for a particle, analagous to a photon, i.e. graviton to propagate the force--forgot, he's saying we don't need them.
But, I can't say for sure, maybe the guy IS an unkown genius laboring in obscurity. He's surely smart and hard-working if he understands the things he mentions. Nearly all the references cited appear to be textbooks, or popular volumes for the educated layman. Hardly expected for ground-breaking work that solves a major problem of modern physics. The fact that I couldn't find out anything about him on the site is also suspect. Sounds like academic snobbery, but I expect a "pedigree" for my dentist that verifies his understanding of the concepts/tools he uses, why not a pedigree that verifies understanding of the tools of physics that this person claims to use to explain gravity? There are some good things about the peer-review/academic accredation system. At first glance, I'd say he's likely to be in the same league as those who claim to have generated unlimited power based upon the work of Tesla. Lots of garbage on the net. Some of the books he uses as references may help to satisfy your curiosity though, I recognize some of the authors as respected physicists. They should provide some idea of gravitational theory--this guy is trying to make gravitational theory fully compatable with other aspects of physics, maybe really what you want anyway.
Whoops!
meant to say "maybe NOT really what you want..."
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
Rog, just be sure YOU don't need fire retardant for the nether end!
I like flavor with the heat--a good habanero sauce is fine for me. Though I can slather on something milder like Crystal Louisiana Hot Sauce the way many people do catsup. The tastless (or impossible to taste) concentrated extract products are some kinda "mine's bigger than your's" thing as far as I can tell.
I like flavor with the heat--a good habanero sauce is fine for me. Though I can slather on something milder like Crystal Louisiana Hot Sauce the way many people do catsup. The tastless (or impossible to taste) concentrated extract products are some kinda "mine's bigger than your's" thing as far as I can tell.