Akheia Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Legion, WTF. "Why they exist AT THIS VERY MOMENT"? THAT is your grand question? And... your explanation for this scary existential question would be...? Because my answer would sound a lot like "because nothing's managed to kill them yet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The distinction you make is between evolution the fact, and the theory of evolution by natural selection; got it. When you have time please explain in your own words what Rosen and you propose. I have not read his work so you'll need to share more than cryptic quotes of his if you care about having others besides yourself understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Let me put it a bit more sucinctly... If Richard Dawkins gets sick, he doesn't visit an evolutionist; he visits a doctor. And when you want to understand how life changed over hundreds of millions of years and came to be what it is now, you don't go to your doctor. What is the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Let me put it a bit more sucinctly... If Richard Dawkins gets sick, he doesn't visit an evolutionist; he visits a doctor. And when you want to understand how life changed over hundreds of millions of years and came to be what it is now, you don't go to your doctor. What is the point? The point is... "Life" whatever the hell it may be (and what biology purports to study) is not to be found in evolution, per se. Evolution assumes the existence of life (and perhaps a certain type of life). "Life" is found in physiology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Let me put it a bit more sucinctly... If Richard Dawkins gets sick, he doesn't visit an evolutionist; he visits a doctor. And when you want to understand how life changed over hundreds of millions of years and came to be what it is now, you don't go to your doctor. What is the point? The point is... "Life" whatever the hell it may be (and what biology purports to study) is not to be found in evolution, per se. Evolution assumes the existence of life (and perhaps a certain type of life). "Life" is found in physiology. And evolution explains how physiology came to be in its current form. The more you talk about this the less I think you're being 'deep', and the more I think you just don't even understand the basics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 .... I think you just don't even understand the basics. Oh the irony. Alright then. Let me assume for a moment that I have not the slightest clue what I'm saying, and bow to your superior knowledge. Please tell me. What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wndwalkr99 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Let me put it a bit more sucinctly... If Richard Dawkins gets sick, he doesn't visit an evolutionist; he visits a doctor. And when you want to understand how life changed over hundreds of millions of years and came to be what it is now, you don't go to your doctor. What is the point? The point is... "Life" whatever the hell it may be (and what biology purports to study) is not to be found in evolution, per se. Evolution assumes the existence of life (and perhaps a certain type of life). "Life" is found in physiology. Are you of the opinion that what you've just said here is revolutionary? I don't know of anyone, anywhere, who has ever said that evolutionary theory is any of these things you're claiming that it isn't. Congratulations on the strawman you have created. Evolutionary theory is what it is; other disciplines are important too, in their own right - even the ones that are inextricably linked with the evolutionary theory, such as physiology. You're not announcing anything groundbreaking here. You're just being vague so that we have a hard time understanding your pseudo-intellectualism, and then berating us when we don't admit you're right. There's no point in even having a discussion with you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 .... I think you just don't even understand the basics. Oh the irony. Alright then. Let me assume for a moment that I have not the slightest clue what I'm saying, and bow to your superior knowledge. Please tell me. What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive? No, you don't get to just change the subject like a creationist. The current state of the physiology of a particular organism or group of organisms is or is not explained by evolution? Yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 There's no point in even having a discussion with you. Funny, I was just coming to the same conclusion about you. What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive? No,... Yes. Absolutely yes. You've said that you don't believe I understand the basics. I take this to mean that you yourself do understand the basics. So I'm coming to you for foundational knowledge. The word "biology" stems from Greek, meaning "study of life". So I'm here to ask you. What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive? What is it exactly that biologists study? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Please tell me. What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive? Life is the characteristic which distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining processes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life Abiogenesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. http://en.wikipedia....s_to_protocells Correct me if wrong. But think this is a new science looking at chemical processes which could explain how you get from chemicals to the emergence of the first self replicating molecules into evolving living objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Um, that's not evolution. Asking what life is is totally not evolutionary theory. You're confusing two completely separate disciplines. Instead of being cryptic, why don't you explain so us poor uneducated idiots understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 What is it exactly that biologists study? Biologists study things that self replicate, something which rocks don't do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 There's no point in even having a discussion with you. Funny, I was just coming to the same conclusion about you. What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive? No,... Yes. Absolutely yes. You've said that you don't believe I understand the basics. I take this to mean that you yourself do understand the basics. So I'm coming to you for foundational knowledge. The word "biology" stems from Greek, meaning "study of life". So I'm here to ask you. What is life? Why is an organism alive whereas a rock is not alive? What is it exactly that biologists study? What if D-O-G actually spells "cat"? What if our universe is just part of some atom in some really, really big guy made out of universes? Can you imagine a color that you can't actually see? That's deep, man. That's deep. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 No, really, man, did you ever LOOK at your hands?!? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Asking what life is is totally not evolutionary theory. That's precisely the point I was trying to make. I actually feel relief right now. What is it exactly that biologists study? Biologists study things that self replicate, something which rocks don't do. I think that is a very good beginning of an answer. Seriously. Rosen seemed to have always instinctively viewed organisms as consisting of two different aspects, which he called phenotype and genotype. He later was able to find a model of organisms which he called metabolic-repair systems. Some fraction of these M,R-systems were also self-replicating. But in any case, I interpret "metabolism" to essentially be phenotypic, whereas "repair" is basically genotypic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 No, really, man, did you ever LOOK at your hands?!? Why do I suddenly feel like I need a very large bag of Doritos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Asking what life is is totally not evolutionary theory. That's precisely the point I was trying to make. I actually feel relief right now. What is it exactly that biologists study? Biologists study things that self replicate, something which rocks don't do. I think that is a very good beginning of an answer. Seriously. Rosen seemed to have always instinctively viewed organisms as consisting of two different aspects, which he called phenotype and genotype. He later was able to find a model of organisms which he called metabolic-repair systems. Some fraction of these M,R-systems were also self-replicating. But in any case, I interpret "metabolism" to essentially be phenotypic, whereas "repair" is basically genotypic. Phenotype/genotype - nothing ground breaking here. These are well understood and broadly accepted concepts. "Metabolic-repair systems" - Please clarify, some organisms 'are' these, or 'have' these? Please provide two examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 "Metabolic-repair systems" - Please clarify... Nah, I'm done. I've had to basically force feed you here, and I will no longer do it. If you really want to better understand, then read Rosen's work for yourself. If you do, then good luck. Some very bright biologists have not understood it themselves. Rosen is dead now. I wish I had met him. I feel a sort of connection with the guy. His daughter tells me that he had a very self-sufficient sort of ego. But damn, it's hard for me to imagine what it must have been like for him to be so far ahead of his time. He must have sometimes felt like something other than human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 No, really, man, did you ever LOOK at your hands?!? Why do I suddenly feel like I need a very large bag of Doritos? Me too. Its because I usually get the cheese or whatever on my hands and have the urge to lick it off like I'm an ape or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Nah, I'm done. Yep, because whenever I ask you for any greater understanding of something beyond what is available on the Wikipedia page you fold. Every. Single. Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 WELL! This has been a delightful little derail. Doritos? Oh no. Popcorn please. With extra butter oil if you would. The idea that Rosen was the only guy who understood that an organism has a phenotype AND a genotype--as if any high school biology student would find that info surprising--is definitely the highlight of today's episode of WTF Crazy. Since Legion's said flat-out that he has no concerns about evolution and his odd little homebrew isn't actually on-topic for a thread about people having trouble accepting evolutionary theory, seems like this was a bit of a non-starter. But I'm sure Legion will pick it back up in the second half. So back to evolution...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 So back to evolution...? Yes. It happened. Everything alive today is the current end result of it. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Evolution is nifty and all, but the question I'm asking myself here is... Does a subculture of frauds experience any real intimacy with each other? It's like... "Yeah man, totally. You and I are both posers, dude. Party on." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The idea that Rosen was the only guy who understood that an organism has a phenotype AND a genotype--as if any high school biology student would find that info surprising--is definitely the highlight of today's episode of WTF Crazy. I caught the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts