Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Recurrent Problem of Chirality
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5116 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 46 of 81 (334999)
07-24-2006 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Bradcap1
07-24-2006 8:28 PM


please hold the sarcasm
ONEVC@
quote:
I was thinking more of my comments on Carnap. Use the EVC Search function if you like or try
EvC Forum: Religion: a survival mechanism?
quote:
We may have this rather in mutation but because of moral issues made political we cant get scientists to consider this possiblity. I didnt see this as actual a few years ago but it is today.
OnEvC
quote:
I will suggest contra the molecular clock and the niche of molecular evolution (from Pauling etc) a synthetic apirori were in the biochem originates the genetics analytically contra Carnap such that a trend might be suspected.
oNeVC
Now if you are really interested in my analytic ability I will ablige but if you are only interested in trying to interdict my conversation with Razd then I feel less compulsion to return the favor.
Please look here
EvC Forum: Neurotheology/Biotheology
for my introduction to the literature. I am however in Jersey for the summer and I do not have access to my personal resources till Sept.

or so.
Are you cognizant of the fau pau in professional biological circles about phenotypes?
You are then saying,
quote:
exclusive use of one form or the other
based on modern evidence. The point back is simply that you can not reason from the highest hierarchic level to this time just as it is difficult to reason before the big bang. If you discount biology of higher levels of organization on principle then we would simply have to agree to disagree.
If you would never consider as falsifiable say, Kervran's notion of biological transmuations then you from an empiric perspective rule out, the possiblity I feel is synthesizable further and I can have no commerce with such a one who would only use words against the point where concepts would suffice. Gould for instance has the position that there can be no direct imposition of physical force.
The remnants you seem to require could still exist. How did you say that you have the final analytic position on the shape of semantic information transfer across generations. How do you specify the formation of this when it "stored" in niches or thermostats hypothetically??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 8:28 PM Bradcap1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2006 8:53 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 81 (335001)
07-24-2006 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Bradcap1
07-23-2006 10:50 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
Then you might want to elaborate on the point you're trying to make.
You need to understand what you're dealing with. There is absolutely no possibility that Brad McFall will make sense, or respond in a cogent way to any argument or provocation you care to attempt.
Just sayin'. He's a brick wall. You're probably going to enjoy talking to alomst anybody else more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Bradcap1, posted 07-23-2006 10:50 PM Bradcap1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2006 8:59 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 52 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 9:30 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 60 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-25-2006 2:26 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1550 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 81 (335002)
07-24-2006 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Brad McFall
07-24-2006 8:46 PM


Re: please hold the sarcasm
Are you cognizant of the fau pau in professional biological circles about phenotypes?
I love fau pau! With the cashews. So spicy! There's a little hole in the wall downtown that makes a great fau pau. I usually get it with the eggrolls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2006 8:46 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5116 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 49 of 81 (335003)
07-24-2006 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
07-24-2006 8:51 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
Dear Frog,
The issue here is how the one-dimensional information that flows from generation to generation might feedback from the different potential shapes of proteins to the fields of force BETWEEN the the DNA strand and the extra-chromosomal material.
The neobiological truth that only one kind of protein hand exists does not mean that the track of this continuity can be necessarily probed behind the adaptive condition that forward feeds the changing shape(s).
Analysis of the code and actual sequence data however may provide the means to track a margin of a single SIDE.
One could make specific hypotheses furthermore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2006 8:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 9:17 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 51 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 9:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Bradcap1
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 81 (335008)
07-24-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Brad McFall
07-24-2006 8:59 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
Let me fill you in. I'm a molecular biologist that makes bacterial protein expression clones for a living. I am an expert in this area.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You lack even the basic understanding of the molecular process to discuss it intelligently.
Science does not give the slightest crap about what you think. Nor does it care about your worthless mathmatical models (worthless because you fail to understand that similarities across genomes are indicative of common descent, thus the proteome is evidence of common descent). Once the process began it could not back up and reboot. The first transcription of RNA into protein would have been mediated by the first RNA polymerase. This would be like a bouncer at the door deciding who could get in. The L-aminos were admitted.
Sell your philosophical bullshit to someone whose buying. I ask again: Do you have any evidence that D-amino acids were ever part of any organisms proteome?
Look into this subject seriously and I'll can the sarcasm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2006 8:59 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2006 10:10 PM Bradcap1 has replied

  
Bradcap1
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 81 (335010)
07-24-2006 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Brad McFall
07-24-2006 8:59 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
The issue here is how the one-dimensional information that flows from generation to generation might feedback from the different potential shapes of proteins to the fields of force BETWEEN the the DNA strand and the extra-chromosomal material.
What the #*%&! The fields of force? Are you serious? What exactly is this extrachromosomal material you speak of?
Analysis of the code and actual sequence data however may provide the means to track a margin of a single SIDE.
Umm, that's what I do. There is absolutely no use of D-amino acids in biological systems. The genetic code is proof of this. I'll tell you what, name which codon signals a D-amino acid? Which tRNA?
One could make specific hypotheses furthermore.
Do us one better and make a prediction based on your hypothesis please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2006 8:59 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2006 9:58 PM Bradcap1 has replied

  
Bradcap1
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 81 (335011)
07-24-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
07-24-2006 8:51 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
You need to understand what you're dealing with. There is absolutely no possibility that Brad McFall will make sense, or respond in a cogent way to any argument or provocation you care to attempt.
This guy is as bad as a creationist, he just leans to the other side. To him no evidence is no problem. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
How's life in Columbia? I'm in KC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2006 8:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2006 8:14 AM Bradcap1 has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5116 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 53 of 81 (335025)
07-24-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Bradcap1
07-24-2006 9:24 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
no four letter words either please!
Since you say you are good at bioinformatics perhaps you could do the work itself.
Last time I looked it up, I read that some description of molecular forces fall off in space at 10-7 from a given atom and since there are 1-D repeats at the number 8 (ACGT*2) then the formal relation between 1-D symmetry and any community of attraction and repulsion would be found by checking a given sequence to see if it repeats a given base at intervals of 8 "downadaptivestream." A simple JAVA or BASIC program could accomplish this.
With actual data this would start to create a kind of landscape or geometry from which differences of ionic and covalent forces in different relations of the gene expression process may stablize a kinematic layer.
I would suggest at this point that Freize patterns be used with the further information about rnas to see if some general trend does not emerge.
With the term "extra-chromosomal" I was only trying to make clear that the use of this geometrization is to intedict the possible 1-D symmetries (either across a DNA strand or along one (with further connections to the host of potential coded information)).
I would predict that handedness is a result of only certain kinds of relations among the various manifestations of patterns on a strip.
But without carrying on beyond the analysis of the situation I can not be certain if the "side" here is material or only topological.
If I was being paid here to elaborate I would do (more) so.
Alas, no one here is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 9:24 PM Bradcap1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 11:26 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5116 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 54 of 81 (335029)
07-24-2006 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Bradcap1
07-24-2006 9:17 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
Sir,
the day will come when you and other will realize that I am a first class theoretical biologist. I come to my understanding admittedly in a larger circut (that has some philosophical component) than is required for phds. This is not hubris.
One could simply say that presence of carbon is a sign of common descent rather than silicon life.
Sir, my Grandfather warned me about the incursion of molecular biologists into the field. I have no animus against this kind of thinking but I find that evolutionary theory speaks to the whole individual organism BEFORE it does to the parts therechanging.
I find the disagreement is social before it is scientific.
I resent your judgements somewhat and wish you really only spoke to the subject.
Feel free to respond until you find me adequately replying but please do not try to speak for something larger than both you and I.
I was recently trying to explain evopeach's position that was somewhat in harmony with my own. You are new to EVC so perhaps there is room for something off topic. The admins will tell us to talk about other issues elsewhere.
I did not say that levos must NOT be thought of WHILE thinking about common descent.
I said, IF YOU had already decided that there were ONLY TWO possibilies then you might TRY to think so.
I think there are three where the logic breaks off, and so, I have started to elborate where this threefoldness exists synthetically, so as to show where the LOGIC in the thought IS.
My Grandfather also thought about evolution rather indiscrimanetly. This I refrain from doing but I am aware how it can come about in ones' mind.
Edited by Brad McFall, : materiality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 9:17 PM Bradcap1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 11:32 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 81 (335036)
07-24-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Bradcap1
07-24-2006 7:51 AM


Re: scaling responses.
The evidence does not support this view.
I'll say this slowely for you: we do not know how life started, nor how many different forms it had, all your evidence is based on what is alive today. You even admit this:
Message 36
It could have began with both forms, but there is no evidence of this.
That is inconclusive: we also do not really have evidence of L-forms from 3.5+ billion years ago. All we have is fairly recent, IIRC.
Do we know what forms were specifically and exclusively used by a certain time, say the Cambrian "explosion" or the Cambrian\Ordovician Extinction event? That's only 488 million years ago eh? (1/7th of the 'history' of life on this planet?)
Further comments:
Message 36, Message 38, Message 39, Message 41 and Message 43 are all responses to the same message, these could have been combined into one post (you can always edit to add material) - they could have been combined with Message 35 as well. Personally I find Brad McFalls posts intriguing and thought provoking, even when I thoroughly disagree with him.
Likewise posts Message 37, Message 40, Message 42 could have been combined into one post.
Of the 17 posts since my last post 12 are from you -- you could have written two or three and been more concise. Note (seeing as you are new here and don't know the ropes) that threads are generally cut off at 300, so "pile posting" is frowned on.
The part you quoted in Message 41 and then said
I did not say this and I do not mean that.
Was a quote of mine: Brad (McFall) was responding to my post not yours, you were just part of the discussion.
This forum also has guidelines for gentlemanly debate ...
... before running off at the mouth like this.
You don't need to say this kind of thing. It adds nothing to the debate, and reflects more on you than anyone else.
I'm not saying no-one here (least of all me) is immune to this, but we should all make the attempt at being civil.
Message 50
Let me fill you in. I'm a molecular biologist that makes bacterial protein expression clones for a living. I am an expert in this area.
The last person to brag about his background did so to his dismay. Personally I find anyone that needs to say this has lost the argument -- the argument is based on the evidence you present, not who or what you are (that is, after all, the logicall fallacy of the appeal to authority with the added ego-centrism of claiming to be the authority).
I find it interesting that non-specialists frequently feel that they have gained a special insight into a fundamental processes that educated, experienced professionals have somehow missed. This takes a special brand of arrogance.
There are many kinds of arrogance. Another kind is thinking that you know it all. If I'm looking for a teacher I'll look for one who doesn't insult my intelligence first, and claim to be an expert second.
Message 37
He emailed me a few times after I joined a certain Yahoo group spouting off nonsense about how evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Message 42
I thought Peach's last post was more recent than that. My bad.
We've exchanged emails and he never reponds to specific points, always changing the subject.
Here is a brief list of his greatest claims off the top of my head:
In other words you are stalking him here? You seem awfully intent.
Maybe you need to learn to enjoy the debate more?
This thread, evopeach or no, is about the abiogenesis question, one that is as yet unanswered, about {why}{how} did only L-forms become the ones used in life as we know it.
If you can demonstrate why they {had} to be L-forms, I am interested.
Thanks.
one final word, just to make your ... posts more interesting to read, you may have noted that indenting is nor preserved in the posts, nor is there any natural paragraph formating (note to percy ...), so the only way to really identify paragraphs is to double enter line breaks.
Edited by RAZD, : typo
Edited by RAZD, : typzs

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 7:51 AM Bradcap1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 11:48 PM RAZD has replied

  
Bradcap1
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 81 (335044)
07-24-2006 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Brad McFall
07-24-2006 9:58 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
Last time I looked it up, I read that some description of molecular forces fall off in space at 10-7 from a given atom and since there are 1-D repeats at the number 8 (ACGT*2) then the formal relation between 1-D symmetry and any community of attraction and repulsion would be found by checking a given sequence to see if it repeats a given base at intervals of 8 "downadaptivestream." A simple JAVA or BASIC program could accomplish this.
You're not getting it. Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase cannot charge tRNAs with D-amino acids. This is due to the genetic code and it's exclusive use of L-amino acids. D-aminos just can't get in due to conformational differences. L-aminos fit.
Now, the fundamental proteins that mediate replication, transcription, translation, and expression are all coded for by DNA that directs L-amino acids. These proteins have conformations that only work with L-amino acids and so on through metabolic pathways.You would have to go back to step one for these fundamental differences to change. You should be getting the idea by now.
With the term "extra-chromosomal" I was only trying to make clear that the use of this geometrization is to intedict the possible 1-D symmetries (either across a DNA strand or along one (with further connections to the host of potential coded information)).
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
You babble on about things with absolutely no biological or chemical relevancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2006 9:58 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Bradcap1
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 81 (335046)
07-24-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Brad McFall
07-24-2006 10:10 PM


Re: scaling 1-D symmetries
the day will come when you and other will realize that I am a first class theoretical biologist. I come to my understanding admittedly in a larger circut (that has some philosophical component) than is required for phds. This is not hubris.
Ha Ha Ha! You are so full of shit! You have shown nothing but first class ignorance of the subject!
I resent your judgements somewhat and wish you really only spoke to the subject.
You've never addressed the subject. You've only thrown out your thoughts or ideas that you can't support with any observable evidence or data. In fact, your responses show nothing but a complete ignorance of this subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Brad McFall, posted 07-24-2006 10:10 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Bradcap1
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 81 (335050)
07-24-2006 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
07-24-2006 10:36 PM


Re: scaling responses.
I'll say this slowely for you: we do not know how life started, nor how many different forms it had, all your evidence is based on what is alive today.
Show me the evidence. Was that slow enough for you? I'll say it again in case you missed it, show me the evidence.
You don't need to say this kind of thing. It adds nothing to the debate, and reflects more on you than anyone else.
I'm not saying no-one here (least of all me) is immune to this, but we should all make the attempt at being civil.
Sure, you stick to observable, reproducible observations and not speculation and I'll be civil. If you keep speculating with no evidence to back it up, I'll keep telling you you're full of shit.
The last person to brag about his background did so to his dismay. Personally I find anyone that needs to say this has lost the argument -- the argument is based on the evidence you present, not who or what you are (that is, after all, the logicall fallacy of the appeal to authority with the added ego-centrism of claiming to be the authority).
Ha Ha Please! I've presented nothing but evidence in my posts to you. Evidently you lack even basic education in biology and chemistry to undestand it. Sucks to be you.
There are many kinds of arrogance. Another kind is thinking that you know it all. If I'm looking for a teacher I'll look for one who doesn't insult my intelligence first, and claim to be an expert second.
I absolutely do not know it all. I have however dedicated the last five years of my life to this field. I don't claim to be an expert in any other field. I do know more than the layman (that includes you and Brad)about molecular biology.
If you can demonstrate why they {had} to be L-forms, I am interested.
Exactly what I've been doing.
one final word, just to make your ... posts more interesting to read, you may have noted that indenting is nor preserved in the posts, nor is there any natural paragraph formating (note to percy ...), so the only way to really identify paragraphs is to double enter line breaks.
See there, I would certainly acknowledge that you are more knowledgeable than me in posting to this group and in computers in general.
BTW, the evidence still does not fit your view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2006 10:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AdminJar, posted 07-24-2006 11:56 PM Bradcap1 has replied
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 07-25-2006 8:07 AM Bradcap1 has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 81 (335052)
07-24-2006 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Bradcap1
07-24-2006 11:48 PM


Enough
Comments like "Sucks to be you" will get you a period in the TimeOut Chair.
Do not reply to this warning, simply heed it.
Edited by AdminJar, : wrong mode

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 58 by Bradcap1, posted 07-24-2006 11:48 PM Bradcap1 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by Bradcap1, posted 07-25-2006 5:17 AM AdminJar has not replied

      
    AnswersInGenitals
    Member (Idle past 234 days)
    Posts: 673
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 60 of 81 (335079)
    07-25-2006 2:26 AM
    Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
    07-24-2006 8:51 PM


    crash writes:
    You need to understand what you're dealing with. There is absolutely no possibility that Brad McFall will make sense
    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, 50 years from now, sandal shod saffron robed acolytes will dance in our city streets beating tambourines and chanting McFall posts.
    There is similarly no doubt in my mind that 100 years from now, theirs will be the dominant religion.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2006 8:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024