UD commenter Andre has a bad case of PCD OCD.
PCD stands for “programmed cell death”. Andre is convinced that it is the death knell not only of cells, but of modern evolutionary theory. He has been spamming the “bomb” thread at UD in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade us of this. (112 mentions of PCD in that thread, but no intelligible argument from Andre.)
Rich suggested that we set up a thread for him here, which I think is a great idea.
Here you go, Andre. Tell us why PCD is an unguided evolution killer, and be prepared to learn why it is not.
Because, if you could, you would be famous.
The safe bet is that you are a crank.
Right. You could work out the math for a quantum mechanical description of the PCD pathway, but it would take you hours and it’s just such a bother. I’m afraid you’re not doing a very good job of faking knowledge of physics.
Bah ! Working out QM wavestate of a system ( biological or physical ) is something any physicist can do.
Even if done, it would demonstrate nothing about how PCD originated.
But the fact that single celled organisms have some PCD functionality pretty much ices the cake.
I am sure you are bemused and amused,dear biologist who ‘understands’ QM
This is what one might call an egregiously false statement. Exactly how many physics papers have you published, again?
And what is it that Dr Krauss says that is “going beyond evolution” according to you?
Yet, I don’t see many physicist publishing studies that “go beyond evolution”. I wonder why would that be.
Could we live diversions aside for a moment?
This was bystander’s first comment in this thread:
So, I ask you, bystander, what biological theory explaining biodiversity you think avoids this spinning in every direction?
And, as someone asked, wouldn’t this spinning in every direction be a interesting proof of the unguided nature of biodiversity?
Why would we care? We don’t get funding for a bio or evo research
By the way, bear in mind that when we say quantum woo we are not saying that there is nothing that QM could add to biology or evolution. We are saying that some people use QM to support biological fantasies like ID.
Does he have a point?
You were the one advicing to find “beyond evolution” in physics. So, what the hell are you talking about?
“Think beyond evolution. Pay attention to physics”
“I do but there’s nothing”
“Why would there be something there?”
Now, please: what is it that Dr Krauss says that is “going beyond evolution” according to you?
And: what biological theory explaining biodiversity you think avoids this spinning in every direction? Wouldn’t this spinning in every direction be a interesting proof of the unguided nature of biodiversity?
Seems he doesn’t.
Evolution explains diversity and the kinship of all living things.
So families branch. What’s the problem?
According to bystander, the problem is this:
“Is this a theory ? If the compass keeps spinning in every direction, what’s the use of the compass ?”
So, the first question would be: has the “problem” been solved by any other theory?
Then, it would be: is there really a problem there?
The compass hasn’t spun much. Darwin’s original proposition can be summarized as: living things are descended from a common ancestor; populations change incrementally and adaptively.
One could say that cosmology has changed a bit since Copernicus, but the earth still orbits the sun. Since Copernicus we have had gravity theories by Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein. Quite a shift.
Just for dessert, compasses, over time, do spin in every direction.
petrushka,
The complaint seems to be that the theory incorporates too many disparate events and processes. Which is actually a complaint about the physical world, rather than a complaint about the theory. Biology isn’t physics: it deals with much more complex systems(*) that undergo lots of different processes.
One might as well complain that plate tectonics is useless, since sometimes plates move and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they subduct and sometimes they spread. Sometimes mountains rise and sometimes they erode. Sometimes plates keep going in the same direction, and sometimes they change directions. What’s the point?
(*) which is why you can’t write down meaningful wavefunctions for them.
Evolution invents things that didn’t previously exist. I don’t think we’ll ever have a definitive theory of how things get invented. We try to describe historical processes, but most of the intermediate steps have been erased, like tracks in the rain.
Look at gpuccio’s argument. he takes the absence of tracks to be evidence of miraculous interventions. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Seems like it might be a problem for anybody claiming that an intelligent designer is responsible. Because, as I said, if there was actually a goal in mind why would anybody who didn’t have to fart around like that? Giggles? Aiming to confuse? I dunno, it seems like an absurd hypothesis to me.
Without any such hypothesis, I don’t get the problem. Who ever suggested that science had reached its apotheosis? There’s a lot of stuff nobody knows. What scientific theory is inconsistent with that admission? It’s the design theory that seems immodest to me.
Bystander, I’ve worked with physicists, I know physicists, physicists are friends of mine.
Bystander, you’re no physicist.
petrushka, Steve and Walto,
I totally agree with you. I’m just taking the other road, the alternative to “evolution makes sense but you don’t see it”, which is “then try to make sense with any other theory”.
So I’m expecting bystander to show us his non-spinning biological theory for biodiversity, and then we’ll see how much criticism it resists.
I also expect him to support his claim of Dr Krauss using QM to go beyond evolution. These guys are very quick to connect claims and people incoherently, but when you ask for detail they usually get in trouble.
Excellent…
Dr. Krauss is not using QM to go beyond ToE. I said he is evo friendly -you could take his help, or any of DNA_jock’s many physicist friends
I was one for many years — hence my skepticism.
You were a physicist and now you are a biologist ?????!!!!!
But we were talking about using QM to go beyond ToE. That’s what we called quantum woo and that was when you defend yourself saying:
“Whether you want to go beyond ToE or not by enlisting a evo friendly physicist who understands QM is your call”
You clearly said that to go “beyond ToE” we should enlist Dr Krauss. And now it turns out that Dr Krauss is saying nothing “beyond ToE”.
Seems you were being a little dishonest and we caught you.
Now, could you answer this: what biological theory explaining biodiversity you think avoids the spinning in every direction of ToE? Wouldn’t this spinning in every direction be a interesting proof of the unguided nature of the processes producing biodiversity?
No you didn’t . Dr.Krauss is evo friendly.He is NOT working on any ‘beyond ToE theory’. In case you are not aware- he is Dr.Richard Dawkin’s buddy . So he is the best suited Dr. (Who may be a friend of DNA_jock) to look beyonf ToE. That’s the reason for my suggestion.
Yes. It’s not all that unusual.
Ok, when he says something about going beyond ToE with QM I PROMISE i’ll pay attention to what he says. (An I’ll ignore now that you were suggesting us to listen to somebody saying something you imagined he might say sometime).
In the meantime, could you answer my question about a theory that explains biodiversity and does not spin in every direction? It would be a hit, since nature spins in every direction, so explaining it with a theory that does not spin so much would be a major achievement.
So now you are into molecular genetics or something else ?
Guillermore, I may be amusing and bemusing and faking ( according to Physicist turned biologist Steve), a crank (according to petrushka) , not a physicist ( according to DNA_Jock who ‘knows’ and works with supposed physicists), incoherent and dishonest (according to you) and yet you want an answer from me ? Isn’t it a great way of enlisting someone to help you look beyond your nose ?
I didn’t get to understand what your theory was exactly..
Could it be that you have no theory to offer? It’s not that hard, just a theory that does not spin in every direction and is useful.. Should be easy..
No. I don’t have any theory which you would want to understand. So you can go back to ToE and live happily in your theory’s dreamland.
bystander:
No. I don’t have any theory which you would want to understand. So you can go back to ToE and live happily in your theory’s dreamland.
Some days you eat the bear and sometimes …well he eats you. Looks like you just got et.
Now you tell me what I want.. Amazing.. I really expected this answer.
Let’s do this: you write your theory, so that anyone can see that you REALLY have a theory that explains biodiversity with less spinning than evolution, and then I’ll admit that I deny to understand it. So, in that way, anyone can know that your claim is absolutely true.
If you deny, it’s reasonable to think that you don’t have a better theory than evolution. That’s why I don’t know your theory (you never explain it to me, because it doesn’t exist) and, of course, I can’t refuse to understand something if it has never been explained to me. So, it’s all bullshit.
So, you can go on with your 8yo child argument, or you can expose what you claim as an adult.
By the way, at this point I can answer your questions:
“Does it help anyone at all ?”
Yes, because IT IS REAL. ToE REALLY says that. That is much more helping than a theory that does not say anything (because it doesn’t exist.)
” Is this a theory ?”
Yes, because you can describe what it says. If you could not describe what it says, it would be possible that in fact it is not saying anything because it doesn’ exist as a theory.
” If the compass keeps spinning in every direction, what’s the use of the compass ?”
A spinning compass is much more useful than an INEXISTING compass.
You are right ofcourse, just that I have no clue how I will explain the theory to you guys. It is not a simple “anything can happen because it happens theory”. Even your resident Physicists turned Biologist has problems with QM so I would be up against total QM novices. I am sure you will spin it as some kind of victory of yours but that’s the reason I will avoid putting up the theory here.
No. Just wearily observe one more terrible bluff.
Not really our loss is it now?
Yep.. You are not even trying to defend your point, so of course it would be “our victory”, In fact, it would be you admitting your theory is nothing but woo, probably quantum woo.
Next time you want to criticize theories, remember you have been embarrased at the idea of explaining your theory.
That’s a bad reason. It’s taken awhile for many new and important theories to be understood. People here might learn something. You might too.
I am tempted to reply “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”, but you did not seem to get my Lloyd Bentsen reference. Sigh.
Many of the commenters at TSZ are biologists, and some (plural) also have a background in physics. You should not assume that you are “up against” “total QM novices”.
Unlike the commenters at other sites, people here are genuinely curious and eager to learn new stuff. Your posturing led me to read Arndt et al., for which I thank you. However, with the notable exception of the bit about magnetic navigation, it confirmed my view of the limited use of QM in understanding biology. I don’t see how QM can help us “go beyond ToE”. But I could be wrong.
But please understand this: refusing to explain your awesome theory because the audience is not worthy scores highly on the crackpot scale – that is how you are coming across right now, and the only way to remedy this situation is :
Explain your theory, man!
Plus they have no concept of Daylight Savings Time making this weekend worse than most! Or do I have that backwards and it is actually the spring that is worst?
Thanks for these science posts. I have no interest in the shenanigans at UD, but like to see the real science that sometimes comes up in discussions of UD at TSZ.
I have no trouble with QM. I do have trouble with people claiming impossible things about QM, like being able to write down a meaningful wavefunction for an entire biological pathway. So far you’ve given no reason to think that you have any theory about QM and evolution, or indeed that you understand QM.
There are plenty of people here with strong scientific backgrounds. The combination of evasiveness and condescension that you’re displaying is an excellent approach if your goal is to look like a crank. If, on the other hand, you want to persuade anyone or communicate something about science, it’s a flop.
Steve S.,
As you have said, you clearly have a strong science background. What is the theory of evolution?
The theory of evolution claims that biological evolution is the source of biodiversity. Biological evolution is the nowadays observed process of some form of selection gradually changing the frequency of certain alleles in a population of living organisms. The different versions of those alleles are produced more or less randomly by different genetic mechanisms.
Guillermoe,
Thanks Gullermoe, but as Steve clearly is very qualified to answer this question, I would prefer to have him answer it. If he would like to accept your definition, I will let him say so.
Are we discussing people or are we discussing theories?