scherado wrote:

Regina wrote:...
Maybe you should try and relax a bit? It's always a bad, bad sign when people start referring to themselves in the third person.

Well, if you don't think that the question of the origin of the well-understood inheritance mechanism is what's "missing", then you and I have nothing to discuss.

Inheritance in its most general and abstract terms is only the retention of reactant structures in the product environment. If you've picked some other referent, then you don't understand why your kids don't look just like you or their mother, but still, hopefully, have cute little retrousé noses and ears that aren't too big and floppy. Those ears and noses are merely the products of a long series of chemical reactions, and not a manifestation of the miraculous. If molecular structure is a mystery to you, that doesn't mean it's a miracle.

There's nothing magical about a chemical reaction that produces species of its reactants as products. You may not care to see it that way, but it's a start for you. The fact that a reaction is producing its reactants in addition to consuming its reactants is an interesting feedback, and is detectable by spectroscopic methods. You should investigate this, if you feel up to it. Once you agree that such reactions can lead to complicated patterns of concentrations of the products and reactants as the reaction proceeds, you'll just appreciate complexity a little more. Once you've done that, you can have your second lesson in chemical complexity, wherein the reactions that involve self-replicating biomolecules are understandable in these terms. A self-replication includes the replication of structures within a molecule, and need not replicate the entire structure exactly; such reactions are observed, but you'll need to study some organic chemistry and biochemistry first.

Your problem is that you've replaced a (possibly simulated) deep ignorance of chemistry with a slack-jawed skepticism of "the inheritance mechanism" as a monolithic concept. Creationists try this tactic regularly, as if they're incapable of starting an investigation of how understandable or not understandable any process is, unless it's no more complicated than taking the wrapper off a stick of gum. A guy who's done all that programming should understand the bottom-up approach to solving a complex problem. There's a subtle difference between ignorance and feigned ignorance that some members of this forum are wise to, so you should be careful not to tip them off to which tactic you're trying. One tip-off is going to be how much effort you put into responding to posts that genuinely try to educate you (assuming you're anywhere nearly as ignorant about chemistry as you are portraying yourself to be).

Regina wrote:Exchanging "opinions" on stuff people aren't experts in is a popular enterprise, especially on the internet, but nonetheless a waste of time and a surefire way of embarrassing oneself in the eyes of experts in the relevant field.

Take care, scherado, and don't assume no one here knows what they're talking about, or that nobody anywhere knows anything about it. The Dunning-Kruger card was sure to be played sooner or later. I mean, for awhile it looked as if you were interested in molecular-level accuracy.

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Just A Theory wrote:Fortunately scherado others have actually asked the same question. One of my favourite papers (although it's a bit dated now) is by Richard Dawkins and is titled The Evolution of Evolvability.

Knock yourself out.

I know, I know. In the appendices for "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins put his thinking to work on the problem. What was that, thirty years ago? I'm guessing scherado hasn't read that one, and will stick for the time being with "The Tyrrany of Words".

No, scherado will read the beginning of the content at the link, see "random mutation", then that the inheritance mechanism is "poof" there without account--it is GIVEN to exist.

Really.

Nice try. We all know that the origination of the inheritance mechanism is what needs to be explained.

Seeing as you clearly have some firm idea of the "inheritance mechanism", would you please define exactly what mechanism you think needs to be explained?

From reading your posts, it seems as though you're asking for an explanation of why chemical reactions give rise to products.

Just A Theory wrote:
From reading your posts, it seems as though you're asking for an explanation of why chemical reactions give rise to products.

More precisely, how the transformations in chemical reactions lead to products that may be reactants for the same reaction or for other reactions occurring at the same time that are coupled to it. Coupled reactions are among what goes on inside living cells.

Even in scherado's limited little world, "transformation" has a referent, like the transformation of a pre-biotic world to a biosphere by means of the transformations achieved by chemical reactions. We will be deemed by scherado to have failed simply because we have not presented steps that scherado can understand, but he may not adopt a naturalistic perspective until you can. I say, excuse him from class, but this may involve kicking him off the forum, unless he just wants to get into the social threads and leave science to the grown-ups.

Cito di Pense wrote:... Inheritance in its most general and abstract terms is only the retention of reactant structures in the product environment. If you've picked some other referent, ...
... There's nothing magical about a chemical reaction that produces species of its reactants as products.

I know what "referent" means.

I also know that if there were no inheritance mechanism, then traits--that somehow, some way appear ("random mutation")--would never be passed to the next generation: we, all of us, would not be here discussing how we got here. We are discussing this, nevertheless, the same would be true about the subject theory: there would be no Theory of Biological Evolution.

You wrote: There's nothing magical about a chemical reaction that produces species of its reactants as products.
How does that adduce toward a defense of (explanation of) the critical mechanism in the subject theory, known as "random mutation?" Do you understand the question? (I'm not whistling Dixie.)

scherado wrote:I know what "referent" means.

It might be the only bit of the English language you're confident you know what it means. You didn't respond to the rest of my comment, perhaps because you don't know what it means. Try again:

Cito di Pense wrote:... Inheritance in its most general and abstract terms is only the retention of reactant structures in the product environment. If you've picked some other referent, ...
... There's nothing magical about a chemical reaction that produces species of its reactants as products.

scherado wrote:I also know that if there were no inheritance mechanism, then traits--that somehow, some way appear ("random mutation")--would never be passed to the next generation: we, all of us, would not be here discussing how we got here. We are discussing this, nevertheless, the same would be true about the subject theory: there would be no Theory of Biological Evolution.

Chemical structure is a trait, genius. Chemical structure has its own inheritance mechanism, and that is its structure. Genius.

scherado wrote:You wrote: There's nothing magical about a chemical reaction that produces species of its reactants as products.
How does that adduce toward a defense of (explanation of) the critical mechanism in the subject theory, known as "random mutation?" Do you understand the question? (I'm not whistling Dixie.)

I already told you: Chemical structure IS a trait. In organisms, some structures map to phenotype. If you don't understand how that works, you need to study chains of coupled reactions in biochemistry. I doubt you're tackling that any time soon.

Chemical structures can be modified. Randomly. When a self-replicating structure is modified, and that modification does not destroy its self-replication mechanism, the modification may persist. You're whistling in the dark, far as I can tell.

Don't hand me this shit now about "critical mechanism in the subject theory". You're doing an obvious bait-and-switch, here, because you've baited us with abiogenesis, gotten a bit of education (which you obviously don't comprehend) and have switched back to inheritance in organisms. Your shit is fucked up, here, man, and I'm the one who fucked it up for you. Don't thank me right away, if you're trying to save some face that now badly needs surgery. Thank me later.

What part of imperfect replicators is a mystery here? Seriously? Those two words, “imperfect replicators” explains the whole ballgame. Because there are alterations in the basic chemistry, via mutations, of all self replicators the mechanisms for inheritance arise via these variations. Some of the time these random mutations give a reproductive advantage to the host, sometimes they do harm and sometimes those mutations have no effect at all. The natural world selects those mutations which give even the slightest advantage to be passed on to those generations following. The natural world also selects against those random mutations which arise in ALL self replicators that are harmful.

As for how this mechanism arose it would pay to look into abiogenesis research, where even the most basic chemical reactions among self replicators display these same mutations, and the same forces work to select those mutations in what we consider “complete” organisms. To not understand this is tantamount to not understanding the tides. The forces at work are well understood, documented and explained in detail beyond the gotcha question by several orders of magnitude.

Over the years we have enjoyed this forum this subject has been beaten into a fine red mist, and in all such cases the willingness to self impose ignorance is always at work among those challenging what they are unable to grasp. The bottom line is the imperfection of the self replicating process is driven by subtle errors which arise spontaneously. There is no such thing as perfection in any system, and this observational fact is either accepted or rejected.

Don’t want to “believe” this? Fine. That’s entirely your choice, but reality doesn’t give a shit what any of us believes.

RS

ETA:
I forgot to include testing among the means by which we understand the mechanisms of inherited traits, and results of said testing which return repeating positive results when carried out by independent researchers.

Cito di Pense wrote:...

scherado wrote:I also know that if there were no inheritance mechanism, then traits--that somehow, some way appear ("random mutation")--would never be passed to the next generation: we, all of us, would not be here discussing how we got here. We are discussing this, nevertheless, the same would be true about the subject theory: there would be no Theory of Biological Evolution.

Chemical structure is a trait, genius. Chemical structure has its own inheritance mechanism, and that is its structure. Genius. ...

Idiot, you haven't addressed my statement in your response. You may make another attempt after reading this: The referent "traits" in my statement quoted in this post means what? It means anything and everything that is inherited by a newborn baby as a result of the propagation act (successful sexual reproduction) performed by Mommy and Daddy. Do I need to give you a lesson in the birds and the bees next?

You may compose your next response to my statement quoted above. Perhaps, it is unassailable.

scherado wrote:I know what "referent" means.

Cito di Pense wrote:
It might be the only bit of the English language you're confident you know what it means.
...
Don't hand me this shit now about "critical mechanism in the subject theory". You're doing an obvious bait-and-switch, here, because you've baited us with abiogenesis, gotten a bit of education (which you obviously don't comprehend) and have switched back to inheritance in organisms. ...[the rest omitted in an act of compassion]

You have, obviously, become unhinged by someone who knows the meaning of a referent. I have, obviously, "cut to the chase" when I wrote, "critical mechanism in the subject theory." I will type slowly in the very slim chance that it will help. Granted, in what follows, I added "change" for clarity.

"[C]ritical [change] mechanism" == mutation, random or otherwise; I used previously "random mutation" as it is, or used to be, the actual, primary mechanism of change in the Theory of Biological Evolution. I wrote, "random or otherwise," here solely because the qualifier "random" does not, in the end, have any bearing on the essence of the putative mechanism called mutation. Anyone who understands the referents knows that "random" is/was designated chosen characteristic to represent "not-God."

"[S]ubject theory" == the Theory of Biological Evolution, as it exist. I add the ending clause as the theory has changed over the few decades since I first learned of it and I expect that it will, for some reason or another, in lieu of finding life off-Earth, or, we can only hope, an alien invasion.

scherado wrote:
Idiot, you haven't addressed my statement in your response.

So you say, but you won't get away with it. My advice is to stick with "knucklehead".

scherado wrote:The referent "traits" in my statement quoted in this post means what? It means anything and everything that is inherited by a newborn baby

Some stuff is inherited, some stuff is recombined, some stuff is mutated, and some stuff happens while the fetus is developing, otherwise a couple of friends of mine who are both college professors would not have had a Downs' Syndrome child. You're fucking around with referents you haven't even mentioned.

All those products are traits, my friend. So your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to figure out what stuff is inherited, what stuff is recombined, what stuff is mutated, and what stuff is post-conception. Nevertheless, all of that plays into what will be inherited etc. by the offspring of that child assuming it survives to maturity. I doubt you're up to that task and you're not a Downs' kid, are ya?

scherado wrote:
"[C]ritical [change] mechanism" == mutation, random or otherwise; I used previously "random mutation" as it is, or used to be, the actual, primary mechanism of change in the Theory of Biological Evolution. I wrote, "random or otherwise," here solely because the qualifier "random" does not, in the end, have any bearing on the essence of the putative mechanism called mutation. Anyone who understands the referents knows that "random" is/was designated chosen characteristic to represent "not-God."

Nah, you wrote all that shit right there because you don't know what your referent is. You can say a word over and over again, and it eventually becomes clear you don't know what the fuck you're on about. For your next trick, try finding the referent for 'actual'.

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:...

scherado wrote:I also know that if there were no inheritance mechanism, then traits--that somehow, some way appear ("random mutation")--would never be passed to the next generation: we, all of us, would not be here discussing how we got here. We are discussing this, nevertheless, the same would be true about the subject theory: there would be no Theory of Biological Evolution.

Chemical structure is a trait, genius. Chemical structure has its own inheritance mechanism, and that is its structure. Genius. ...

Idiot, you haven't addressed my statement in your response. You may make another attempt after reading this: The referent "traits" in my statement quoted in this post means what? It means anything and everything that is inherited by a newborn baby as a result of the propagation act (successful sexual reproduction) performed by Mommy and Daddy. Do I need to give you a lesson in the birds and the bees next?

You may compose your next response to my statement quoted above. Perhaps, it is unassailable.

scherado wrote:I know what "referent" means.

Cito di Pense wrote:
It might be the only bit of the English language you're confident you know what it means.
...
Don't hand me this shit now about "critical mechanism in the subject theory". You're doing an obvious bait-and-switch, here, because you've baited us with abiogenesis, gotten a bit of education (which you obviously don't comprehend) and have switched back to inheritance in organisms. ...[the rest omitted in an act of compassion]

You have, obviously, become unhinged by someone who knows the meaning of a referent. I have, obviously, "cut to the chase" when I wrote, "critical mechanism in the subject theory." I will type slowly in the very slim chance that it will help. Granted, in what follows, I added "change" for clarity.

"[C]ritical [change] mechanism" == mutation, random or otherwise; I used previously "random mutation" as it is, or used to be, the actual, primary mechanism of change in the Theory of Biological Evolution. I wrote, "random or otherwise," here solely because the qualifier "random" does not, in the end, have any bearing on the essence of the putative mechanism called mutation. Anyone who understands the referents knows that "random" is/was designated chosen characteristic to represent "not-God."

"[S]ubject theory" == the Theory of Biological Evolution, as it exist. I add the ending clause as the theory has changed over the few decades since I first learned of it and I expect that it will, for some reason or another, in lieu of finding life off-Earth, or, we can only hope, an alien invasion.

Going by your rapidly increasing use of insults. your stress levels seem to be skyrocketing. Take a nap.

scherado wrote:"[S]ubject theory" == the Theory of Biological Evolution, as it exist. I add the ending clause as the theory has changed over the few decades since I first learned of it and I expect that it will, for some reason or another, in lieu of finding life off-Earth, or, we can only hope, an alien invasion.

Your new assignment: Get your verb endings to agree in person and number, and figure out what the referent for 'exist' is. There's a good lad.

Since you first learned of it? You learned of it, and stopped there? Don't do that. Do some more learning. No wonder your shit is so out of whack.

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:...

scherado wrote:I also know that if there were no inheritance mechanism, then traits--that somehow, some way appear ("random mutation")--would never be passed to the next generation: we, all of us, would not be here discussing how we got here. We are discussing this, nevertheless, the same would be true about the subject theory: there would be no Theory of Biological Evolution.

Chemical structure is a trait, genius. Chemical structure has its own inheritance mechanism, and that is its structure. Genius. ...

Idiot,

Name-calling contravenes the FUA you signed.

scherado wrote: You may make another attempt after

You don't get to make demands about when, what or how people post, especially not when you've offered nothing but vapid trolling so far.

scherado wrote:You may compose your next response to my statement quoted above.

Again, not up to you to decide.

scherado wrote:
I also know that if there were no inheritance mechanism, then traits--that somehow, some way appear ("random mutation")--would never be passed to the next generation: we, all of us, would not be here discussing how we got here.

When a Mommy DNA loves a Daddy DNA very much...

laklak wrote:

scherado wrote:
I also know that if there were no inheritance mechanism, then traits--that somehow, some way appear ("random mutation")--would never be passed to the next generation: we, all of us, would not be here discussing how we got here.

When a Mommy DNA loves a Daddy DNA very much...

Cito laughed. Not because he wanted to, but because he had two.

Cito di Pense wrote:

scherado wrote:
Idiot, you haven't addressed my statement in your response.

So you say, but you won't get away with it. My advice is to stick with "knucklehead".

scherado wrote:The referent "traits" in my statement quoted in this post means what? It means anything and everything that is inherited by a newborn baby

Some stuff is inherited, some stuff is recombined, some stuff is mutated, ...

I have been clear in referring to what's passed to the newborn through the well-understood process of human propagation, but only that which is a result of two set of genes interacting. You can flap and flail your arms as much as you want about other processes, but I won't join you.

You may make your next attempt.

scherado wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

scherado wrote:
Idiot, you haven't addressed my statement in your response.

So you say, but you won't get away with it. My advice is to stick with "knucklehead".

scherado wrote:The referent "traits" in my statement quoted in this post means what? It means anything and everything that is inherited by a newborn baby

Some stuff is inherited, some stuff is recombined, some stuff is mutated, ...

I have been clear in referring to what's passed to the newborn through the well-understood process of human propagation, but only that which is a result of two set of genes interacting. You can flap and flail your arms as much as you want about other processes, but I won't join you.

You may make your next attempt.

You've still not improved your vapid trolling.

I give up, scherado has me convinced, I retract it all, this is how it went down:

scherado wrote:
You may make your next attempt.

Which part of it are you having trouble understanding?

Plainly, there's nothing magical going on with in vitro fertilization. The whole process is right there in clear view. Get it? In vitro? More Latin, so I guess we're out of luck, there. Thus, "human propagation" is not really what you're asking about. Beyond that, your understanding of biochemistry, biology, paleontology and astrophysics is insufficient for anyone serious about science to volunteer any more in the way of your education. Now, go troll somebody else. And read a book for fuck's sake. Something besides the witterings of that guy from 1938.

Apparently, shagging has something to do with it. According to pointy-headed scientists, anyway. I'm not buying it, because I've only got two kids and I've shagged a few more times than that. I think they just like making shit up. Besides, my youngest doesn't look like me at all and I wasn't home much back then.

laklak wrote:Apparently, shagging has something to do with it. According to pointy-headed scientists, anyway. I'm not buying it, because I've only got two kids and I've shagged a few more times than that. I think they just like making shit up. Besides, my youngest doesn't look like me at all and I wasn't home much back then.

Just ask the milkman.

Lol, like I'd listen to anything that meatwad said. The guy might have been all 6-pack abs and wavy hair, but he was thick as pigshit.