I wanted to quit this day (Day 4, Canadian Rockies, mile 200) and that guy (338) was really working me. I had to dig down into myself deeper than I have ever had to go. This day found weaknesses I didn't think I had. Truth was talking to me that day. The truth about myself. It was the day I learned the most. Bring on my next test!!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Hard Test are Good!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
It's very true that the most difficult tests in life are often the most rewarding, despite the hardship that may accompany these trials. We can even see this in as limited a microcosm of life as our own academic careers.
(However, my previous conclusions regarding your mental state make me seriously question the validity of your statement that you discovered the truth about yourself. Your unfortunate mental mutation is a permanent disorder, more likely to get worse than better, according to my thorough research.)
Dear,Oh Dear Administrator. I am deeply saddened by your repeated lack of scientific observation to said photo. It is as clear as the nose on your face to, the shear truth that grips those handlebars. Many hills were crested that day and with each summit came another truth.
Mental and mutational misfortune your say. I would conclude that adaptability to extreme environmental conditions is the truth.
A review of your research will easily lead you to a new conclusion supported by the obvious truth of the ride. "LOOK HARDER!"
Unfortunately, you either continue to be under the influence of your mental mutations or have simply developed an erroneous theory. I concede that natural selection is a most powerful tool that allows for stunning adaptations to our environment. It is even conceivable that someone with as rapid a mutation rate as your own, as I detailed in my earlier post, could develop as many adaptations as could multiple generations of other organisms. However, we must not overestimate the abilities of random mutation in this case.
In the suborder Notothenioidei there is a remarkable family of fish known as Channichthyidae. These fish, also called icefish, are the only known vertebrates to lack hemoglobin and often have defunct red blood cells. These unique adaptations were in response to the environmental pressure of rapidly cooling oceans which were falling below freezing; in this case, natural selection favored those organisms without hemoglobin. The mutations that caused this in the icefish did not create, but rather destroyed. The series of mutations caused the hemoglobin gene to become unusable; thus, hemoglobin could not be produced. These favorable mutations spread and survived for many generations. This is the point where we can foresee a limit to natural selection and random mutation. If the waters that make up this fish's habitat was to warm again, it could not adapt, because too many changes had been made to the family's genetic code. It's easier to break something than to fix it. Multiple, likely simultaneous, mutations would be necessary to fix this, and it is simply beyond the abilities of the powerful tools of adaptation.
This scenario is a parallel to the aforementioned neurological mutations that have been the subject of my studies. The mutations that occurred to the brain in this case were examples of "breaking" genes; this is easily explained, even in the face of natural selection. Your inability to think about yourself has produced no serious threat to your survival, and thus natural selection can do nothing to prevent the mutations. Since we have already ascertained that there was indeed mutations to your neurons, I shall not expand on this further, but rather consider your supposed recovery; if I have interpreted your comment correctly, the bold theory you have posed is that you adapted to "extreme environmental conditions" and thus were able to discover the truth about yourself. This is where the problem lies. As I explained previously, someone with so rapid a mutation rate could definitely mutate under the correct conditions. However, the scenario now discussed would not be the correct conditions, for one relatively simple reason: the mutations required to undo, per say, those that cause the disorder are so many, and likely often needed simultaneously, that the chance of such mutations are infinitesimally small, likely impossible, even taking in account your mutation rate. This is clearly parallel to the case of the icefish. Many scientists have come to the conclusion that changes like those of the icefish are indeed irreversible, including the molecular biologist Sean B. Carroll of the University of Wisconsin.
After a thorough analysis of the available data and the consideration of some of the methods and limitations of evolution, we can clearly see that your likely delusional theory is simply incorrect.
Its true that we can work hard and feal like quiting like a test or something thats hard to do in life. We ushaly feal wonderful and we feal good about our slves in return. Doing something hard and finish and give up. We do have weakness and i know that i do.
Mindy
the only things i can gave to you don't give up no matter what happened how hard of that test, do what can you do and i know test it's too hard to us but remember to don't give up.
Dear Ms. Administrator,
I am so excited upon reading your recent explanation too the unbelievable adaptability of the professors riding ability. It was well written and research, but if I may say your reviews and conclusions are at best general and unfounded.
I would concur also that natural selection is a powerful force and could produce a species such as myself. Well noted, by your explanation that this might take multiple generations and I did not have time for that. I was in a race against time, truth, and survival
I think the error in your thinking stems from what you believe was a chromosomal mutation which would require multiple generations. I probably took it for granted that your would research different kinds of mutations based of your thirst for perfection.
The mutation that is occurring that day from the extreme environmental conditions was a gene frameshift mutation which can cause a polypeptide (protein) change. Which brings me to the Icefish vs keller selection. The Icefish was probably a chromosomal mutation which in many environmental circumstances can be good or bad depending on future environmental changes. So, all I can say for the Icefish is "to Bad to sad" and long live Keller.
Now, back to the protein change brought about by a frameshift mutation. Just what was the protein that was effected. You guessed it, hemoglobin. My body that day even with my advanced neurological disorder produced a more advance and more powerful hemoglobin protein. Mind boggling isn't it!! You even stated, that under the right conditions it can happen and truth showed it that day.
Many at the finish line that day screamed miracle. I simple told them that often all it takes to change the world is a frameshift.
You are so close Ms. administrator and with a little open mindedness and bantering you will finally see the light of the evidence. The Truth is out there!
The Professor
if you are going to leave a comment that you wish others to read, it is wise to keep it short enough that your peers do not get confused or bored and quit reading.
Professor,
Your expertise regarding genetics yet again reminds me of the incredible range of knowledge that you have accumulated. However, I'm afraid that in your haste to answer my thoroughly researched theory, you have misunderstood and thus misrepresented my arguments. You have also presented another hypothesis that I believe is not only highly unlikely, but aside from the main point of this scientific deliberation.
In your second and third paragraphs, you state that I explained that the subject would not have time to mutate, as it would take multiple generations. This is a blatant misconception of what I said. In the previous comment, I stated: "It is even conceivable that someone with as rapid a mutation rate as your own... could develop as many adaptations as could multiple generations of other organisms." In case this statement was not sufficiently clear, I was simply referring to the fact that the rapid mutation rate found in Keller, for which I explained the reason in our previous discourse, would allow him to adapt to conditions very quickly, while it would take other organisms generations to form similar adaptations.
You then state that my error was in only considering "chromosomal mutations which would require multiple generations." Let me clarify my argument: Like the icefish, some of Keller's genes mutated (regardless of the kind of mutation; deletion, insertion, duplication, etc) and made some of their respective proteins defunct. In the icefish, the mutation occurred in the hemoglobin gene, except that this mutation was beneficial to its survival. In Keller's case, the neurological mutation was simply neutral, in terms of survival value, so was not acted upon by natural selection and happened to spread unhindered. From there, multiple mutations further "fossilized" the now useless genes, making them less and less reminiscent of the genes originally affected. Because of the vast amount of fossilization over many, many years, it is impossible that the short amount of time during which these "extreme environmental conditions" were present was sufficient to undo decades of fossilization. Accordingly, it is impossible that you could have discovered the truth about yourself, or "cured" yourself.
Strangely, you go on to discuss your evolution of "better" hemoglobin. I am puzzled as to the reason for your newest theory, as it has nothing to do with your claim that you learned the truth about yourself or the related neurological mutations. Where we not discussing the theory that you adapted to environmental conditions and thus reversed those mutations that caused you to think incorrectly about your origins and about yourself in general? Nonetheless, I feel obliged to disprove your hemoglobin theory, or at least illustrate the extreme unlikelihood of such a mutation occurring. Interestingly, there is a well known example of a frameshift mutation affecting the human hemoglobin gene, that of Thalassemia, a genetic disorder that causes anemia. Anemia, in turn, causes less oxygen to be carried to cells, which would certainly be detrimental. While this single example by no means disproves your unfounded theory, it is interesting to note that such a mutation would cause a detrimental affect. My, granted limited, expertise would lead me to conclude that a frameshift mutation would most likely not lead to an improved hemoglobin protein, and in this case, is even less likely. This is because natural selection does not work efficiently in this scenario of multiple, rapid mutations in a single organism. Nonetheless, I find your theory even more invalid in that you have presented absolutely no proof as to why your bold statement is correct. Couldn't any number of other mutations, possibly much more likely, have occurred, whether preserved by natural selection or pure chance? Lastly, I will restate that your hemoglobin theory is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand, and is in no way related to truth in any scientific sense.
While at first glance, your arguments presented here may exhibit knowledge and thoughtful construction, upon analysis, they prove to be completely irrelevant, unfounded, or simply illustrative of a misunderstanding of the very arguments they wish to refute.
nice bike keller, i have those shox on my bike to there sweet! thats a good example of a hard test you strain yourself but in the end its worth it because you are a little stronger and you get to go back down the hill you just worked so hard for.
Jake w.
Woohoo Keller.
That's some hard work and it's good not to give up.
well atleast you dint give up keller!!=D
did u fall at any time??
-jocelynn
Ms. administrator,
I am truly sorry for not responding sooner to your rebuttal. I have lately been on a journey of joy and many truths were once again revealed during this time.
I am quite overwhelmed by your vigor, drive and research into the possibility that said species of Keller/Professor, to whom are one in the same is at best an erroneous theory. Your supporting evidence is grand, cited and well thought out. I applaud you in your refusal to bend to my many years of research and knowledge.
Your inability to conclude the obvious can probably be attributed to once again your hardheadedness. Once you open up and expand your thinking on natural selection and environmental mutations the "aha" will happen.
What I am quite fascinated by is your constant referral to my debilitating genetic disorder which in itself is a fictitious theory based on your inaccurate observations of the photos and my research. Please don't get me wrong. The mutation and state of Keller/Professor is definitely clear, its just that you theorize this state as a detriment to self and survival. When in actuality this mutation is a genetic change for the survival of a new species of Homo sapien. Aristotle even believed that "nature does nothing in vain" and whatever she does is done with a purpose. All things, living or stick were created for a purpose. I do agree that many afflicted with this new genetic code have not survived, which could cause many in the scientific community to sway to an old and out dated way of thinking. Odd has always been labeled as not being of the norm.
You stated that it is easier to break something than to fix it. I say it depends how you put it back together. You just might get something better. Most scientific discoverers are often not intentional but discovered by keen insight and analytical observation.
Truth. What is truth Ms. Administrator? Is it my truth or your truth and if I believe it is the truth than wouldn't it be the truth. It has been highly documented that extreme conditions and stimulus open a window to clarity and truth. So, to say that I cannot experience truth is a very bold statement.
For such a young mind your ability to construct meaning from science and nonsense is extraordinary and a quality that propels humanity forward. Though, you should never forget the possibility of anything and history is evidence of this. Creativity, innovation and the ability to see things were others cannot is the key. Chicken, stick, icefish, hemoglobin and banana smelling E. Coli are all possible and I am living proof!!
Summum Bonum
Keller/Professor
Professor,
Any unpunctuality is completely understandable, and I am honored to participate in a scientific discourse with such a biologist so knowledgeable in various fields, as I have now learned. While your new philosophical thoughts initially present a compelling, if abstract, argument, upon further analysis it becomes clear that it by no means disproves the fact that you did not learn the truth about yourself.
You state that I fail to conclude the obvious. The inner workings of the wonders of nature are surely anything but obvious. The processes that have led to the biodiversity around us and the differences in individuals cannot be understood with hasty assumptions, only careful hypotheses. With such complex "machinery," it certainly is important to keep the mind open to the possibilities and understand that there may be more correct alternative theories out there that we cannot even ponder as of now. I concur with you on this point. Nonetheless, this does not warrant the acceptance of completely unfounded theories (Big Bang II, cross-kingdom breeding, etc).
While I am open to possible rebuttals to my mental mutation theory, I am not keen to bend to statements with absolutely no factual backing; your firm belief that my theory is "fictitious" and based on "inaccurate observations" is completely unfounded, lacking even theoretical considerations, and is thus invalid. You must also note that I have never stated that your mental disorder is a detriment to survival. In fact, I clearly stated the opposite: "In Keller's case, the neurological mutation was simply neutral, in terms of survival value, so was not acted upon by natural selection and happened to spread unhindered."
Your newest reasoning in an attempt to disprove my theory is a statement by Aristotle, the brilliant philosopher, biologist, and physicist, among other fields (I will return to your "new species of Homo sapien" theory shortly). He certainly made many astounding discoveries for his time: he accurately described the four-chambered fore-stomachs of ruminants and the mammalian embyrological development of the hound shark Mustelus laevis. But do these admittingly ahead of his time biological observations mean that he could possibly understand the complex workings of natural selection and genetic mutation, even in a rudimentary sense? Aristotle believed that an intelligence designed the natural world; this teleological view would certainly cause him to arrive at the conclusion that "Nature does nothing in vain." He believed that Nature, in not giving animals both horns and tusks, was giving them only what was necessary. At the time, he would have had no way of knowing that there is no intelligence, but natural random processes, to guide our creation. Current scientific knowledge makes it clear that mutations can very easily be in vain.
In the only scientific consideration in your rebuttal, you make the bold statement that your mutations were for the sake of "a new species of Homo sapien." This unfounded assumption does not take into account one important aspect of natural selection and your particular mutation: your disorder is neutral in terms of survival ability. You will not outlive other species (and thus will not replace them) and, likewise, you will not die out. There is absolutely no reason for you to form another species, or to even pass on your traits to the next generation.
You then state that things can be fixed, depending on how you put it back together. Granted, there are synonymous mutations that do not make a difference to the code, and thus there are more possibilities for possible "fixes." However, I still maintain that the amount of fossilization is not reversible in the short period of extreme environmental conditions that we are discussing. If you provide calculations that prove otherwise, I will certainly retract my statement and acknowledge this alternative solution.
Lastly, you ask what truth is. Well, dear Professor, in the world of science, a realm in which the problem we are discussing certainly resides, truth is a fact that conforms to reality. Your belief that you came from the cross between a stick and a chicken clearly does not conform to reality (unless you can prove otherwise, which you have not), and is thus more accurately described as a delusion. Also, consider this Latin definition of truth, adequatio intellectus et rei ("correspondence of the mind and reality").
In conclusion, I must say that I am dismayed by such a brilliant biologist's lack of hard evidence and use of flimsy philosophical reasoning in an attempt to disprove a solid scientific hypothesis. However, Professor, I maintain that you have many excellent ideas, and with perhaps less galumphing and more focus on the scientific issue at hand, you could disprove at least parts of my theory, coming as it is from a novice researcher such as myself. Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to learn from such an experienced scientist and for taking the time to evaluate my humble theories.
Cacoethes Scribendi,
The Administrator
Dear, Oh Dear Ms. Administrator,
The concreteness of your statements make me wonder if my chisel is hard enough to chip away that seemingly impenetrable sternness you hold so tightly. I think with time, multiple exchanges and many many
hardened chisels. I will be able to wear you down and free the random thinking trapped inside of you.
I will say though that in my many scientific journeys I have never found a more worthy opponent at such a young age. Your abilities with scientific reasoning are artful, eloquent and strong spun. Your delivery at times is even quite swift and painful. Which I do much admire.
Many young scientists though fall into the trap of sequential thinking based on rule bound guidelines and find it hard to think outside the box. Yes, my claims might be flimsy and somewhat exuberant but like so many great scientist before me. Time will ultimately bring my claims to fruition.
Like my good friend James Watson said, "Extraordinary claims inspire extraordinary discoveries" no matter what ones state of mind. Oh, whats that other one by that guy named Einstein. Something along the lines of imagination is more important than knowledge, but what does he know, right!
So, be it cross Kingdom, chicken or Keller, hemoglobin, delusion, Big Bang II or extreme environmental conditions anything is plausible given the variable of time and the never ending pursuit of knowledge. A little bit of dance and play never hurts either!!
So, Ms. Administrator lets continue to dance, because I again have found a slight error in your thinking. I have recently, upon reading your blog come to realize that you may think that photosynthesis is the coolest thing in biology. Let me start off by trying your approach. WRONG!! Again it is as obvious as the nose on your face that respiration is beyond a shadow of doubt the #1 coolest most important process in the biosphere.
Why, because respiration came first in evolution and you never mess with evolution, right? Let me explain.
About 3.5 billion years ago a little water, some chemicals and one large bolt of lightning made for one surprisingly lively soup. It would seem that just the right ingredients were in this soup to start respiration, but some like to call it the beginning of life. A 1953 experiment by Stanley Miller also clearly supports the indisputable coolness of the respiration process. Things didn't really get rolling for respiration though until life was separated from non-life by the formation of a membrane. This membrane allowed for more efficient respiration functions leading to more adaptive abilities to environmental changes. Now this does go against the second law of thermodynamics which states that the universe moves in a direction of increased entropy but it would seem that cells don't completely apply to this law. Go figure.
So, photosynthesis is O.K. but the true king is respiration. So what if carbohydrates and oxygen are in short supply. I will just get my energy from a little known thing called a "redox reaction."
I look forward to your support of photosynthesis and its importance in the biosphere. I am sure that because of your unrelenting drive to match my extraordinary knowledge in the field of biology, you will undoubtedly spend countless hours researching my claims. Hey don't forget to take a walk or a ride.
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
Einstein and the Professor
Professor,
I am always delighted to be subject to the force of your wise chisel: for every chip, I must repair it with the mortar of newly gained knowledge and thus emerge as a stronger structure than before. Without such a talented and worldly mentor as yourself, my progress in the world of scientific research would have been limited at best.
I am willing to admit that my personality may prevent me from giving equal consideration to wildly abstract hypotheses. Perhaps this is evidence of inexperience and, as you put it, sequential thinking. But I feel that I do have enough knowledge in this field to recognize the difference between a previously unheard of, yet thoughtfully constructed hypothesis and one individual's unfounded and overly imaginative delusion. Without one iota of proof, how can even the most open-minded scientist even consider your statements regarding Big Bang II and cross kingdom breeding as hypotheses, much less fact? Darwin's theory of evolution was, at its time, extremely abstract, and time proved it correct, you may say. And you would be correct in this observation. However, this does not negate the fact that Darwin presented page after page of observations that gave great credibility to his revolutionary theory. Let us note that you have not provided such credible evidence. And James D. Watson, whom you were quick to quote, would most certainly not support your belief that you came from the cross between a stick and a chicken unless you presented solid evidence. And, once more, you have not. As far as Einstein's quote that "Imagination is more important than knowledge," he would be correct to a certain degree in the realm of science: if Darwin could not have imagined gradual changes of millions of years, we would not be so lucky as to have the theory of evolution. However, he also understood the fundamentals of biology and geology. If he did not have knowledge as a foundation for his theory, it would have absolutely broken down. With the utmost respect, your flimsy hypotheses have not represented your understanding of the basic principles of biology, nor have they presented the evidence to overturn those time tested principles. All that is present in your arguments is an active imagination. As you can see, unquestioningly accepting your unfounded hypotheses would simply be irresponsible on the part of any self-respecting scientist.
Now, on to your next argument. To summarize, you state that cellular respiration, not photosynthesis, is the most important process in the biosphere. This is supposedly due to the fact that cellular respiration was developed before photosynthesis in the evolutionary timeline. This is, obviously, a well founded fact. It is also true that early organisms obtained their energy through oxidation and reduction reactions associated with weathering and hydrothermal activity. While I have never argued for the supremacy of photosynthesis, I feel obliged, for the beauty of our scientific dance, to point out a few flaws within your seemingly solid stone wall of reasoning.
My arguments are based upon the principle that the fact that cellular respiration came first does not make it more important or "cool" to scholars of biology or to our biosphere today, particularly if considered anthropocentrically. First, I would like to argue that we would not have the biodiversity around us today, and perhaps not even our own species, if photosynthesis had not evolved. A bold statement, you might say. Indeed, but this has been thoroughly backed by scientific research. Redox reactions did provide energy sources for organisms in prehistoric earth, such as from deep sea vents, but when photosynthesis evolved, the planet gained an energy source that was many fold larger than the energy available from redox reactions. As published in Science by Jin Xiong et al., this difference is measurable quantitatively on modern earth. According to their study, the development of oxygenic photosynthesis increased global organic activity by two or three orders of magnitude. This was due to the new ability of oxygenic photosynthetic bacteria to obtain hydrogen for organic biosynthesis from water. Thus, organisms were freed from its dependence upon chemical sources for reducing power (weathering and hydrothermal sources). Instead, they could survive wherever the necessary components for photosynthesis were present. Without this dramatically increased global organic activity, who knows where the evolution of life may have proceeded to? Would humans exist, or would we simply be underwater organisms still dependent upon deep sea vents? In addition, it should not be necessary to note that in our biosphere, we are dependent upon those photosynthetic organisms as a source of energy, directly or indirectly.
Undoubtedly, you will quickly utilize your much superior knowledge base to attempt to surpass these relatively simple yet remarkable points, but you may find that it is for naught, as photosynthesis is undeniably more important in the biosphere than cellular respiration. However, as always, I appreciate the time you have taken to share your expertise and look forward to your evaluation and response to these arguments.
The Administrator
Post a Comment