Does procreation offer proof;

[Bishadi]

No. This doesn't even make sense--there is no "life force"; it's chemistry. The two daughter cells each get DNA, organells, chemicals, mitochondria (specifically called out because it's the powerhouse), etc. Like I said, in biology this is a non-issue. It's called miosis and mitosis.

what is a life force? Is that some new lingo you created for the thread?

no one posted anything about such; is english your second language?

It's called miosis and mitosis

miosis is about the eye

did you forget how to spell in your trade?

This has nothing to do with pride. You're questioning miosis and mitosis--I called them out specifically so that you can look them up and learn for yourself what exactly goes on.

the eye constriction and a specific nucleus division regarding the chromosomes count

but you cant spell and no one ever explained a cell-division to you

At least one thing makes sense. You assume that there is a life-force of some sort (some sort of light, far as I can tell), which is why you bring up physics in a biology thread. However, that idea was discounted over a century ago.

lots has been learned;

no one brought up a 'life-force' and you ar ranting

and you can't spell while you claim to be a professional in the field of biology and forgot what meiosis is.


meiosis on the Web:

(genetics) cell division that produces reproductive cells in sexually reproducing organisms; the nucleus divides into four nuclei each containing half the chromosome number (leading to gametes in animals and spores in plants)

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited for Rules 0 and 12.

 

[Ziggurat]

miosis is about the eye

did you forget how to spell in your trade?

Miosis is ALSO an alternative spelling of meiosis.

When you want to be pedantic, it helps to actually be right.

 

[majamin]

Hypothesis of the Abuse of Entropy: Abuse of Entropy occurs because (1) procreation causes the life of a mass to decrease in entropy, (2) instinct renders mass captured from the environment by intent. Also: if the life is still alive beyond the death of the immediate body, then 'life' is not following the entropic belief of the complacent.

Defn of "Life of a mass": The 'life' of mass is the specimen (the same as the flame of a fire) [source]

Defn of "Abuse of Entropy": i.e. life, intends to live (see instinct) [source]

Notes:

1. reality combines a whole bunch of stuff and each 'individual' is just of their own coherance [source]
2. life does further after our choice is gone [source]
3. miosis is about the eye [source]

Is that close, or do we need to make some adjustments so far, Bishadi?

 

[Bishadi]

Miosis is ALSO an alternative spelling of meiosis.

When you want to be pedantic, it helps to actually be right.

half the time, i actually am

Definitions of miosis on the Web:

meiosis: (genetics) cell division that produces reproductive cells in sexually reproducing organisms; the nucleus divides into four nuclei each containing half the chromosome number (leading to gametes in animals and spores in plants)




light reflex: reflex contraction of the sphincter muscle of the iris in response to a bright light (or certain drugs) causing the pupil to become smaller
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Miosis is constriction of the pupil of the eye. This is a normal response to an increase in light but can also be associated with certain pathological conditions, microwave radiation exposure, and certain drugs, especially opiates.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miosis

Contraction of the pupil of the eye
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miosis

excessive contraction of pupils.
www.aimsusa.org/UsefulDefinitions.htm

Pupillary constriction.
www.consumersresearchcncl.org/Healthcare/Optometrists/opt_glossary.html

miotic - A type of eye drop that constricts the pupil; used to treat glaucoma.
www.everydayhealth.com/vision-center/the-healthy-eye/glossary.aspx

miotic - a drug that causes the pupil to constrict
dmh.lacounty.gov/Glossary/AMAGlossary/AMAglossary_m.html



i personally am beginning to see that he may be experiencing miosis!


but no matter, the FACT is meiosis is a cell division and all the post was for was to try and insult me directly.


not my fault as well what he did was not right (good for anyone)

 

[Bishadi]

Hypothesis of the Abuse of Entropy: Abuse of Entropy occurs because (1) procreation causes the life of a mass to decrease in entropy, (2) instinct renders mass captured from the environment by intent. Also: if the life is still alive beyond the death of the immediate body, then 'life' is not following the entropic belief of the complacent.

Defn of "Life of a mass": The 'life' of mass is the specimen (the same as the flame of a fire) [source]

energy (light)

see the quantum jump from the bohr analogy (any change of electron shell must absorb/release a 'x' (energy)

Defn of "Abuse of Entropy": i.e. life, intends to live (see instinct) [source]

you shared the evidence; life intends to live

Notes:

1. reality combines a whole bunch of stuff and each 'individual' is just of their own coherance [source]
2. life does further after our choice is gone [source]
3. miosis is about the eye [source]

Is that close, or do we need to make some adjustments so far, Bishadi?

so far you are quoting me

and if you read the whole thread, then you would see that EVERY items above has been already addressed a few times over (except; miosis versus meiosis (but it will be as i see it) ie.. one is about the eye (light reaction) the other a cell division (what he was trying to discredit in the first place)


All this thread is sharing is that the 'life' abuses entropy (the method of describing the 'intent' or the reductionary 'law' of energy bound within todays physics)


if anyone can share how it is wrong to address the life of mass as irrelevant, than please do.

 

[Dinwar]

i personally am beginning to see that he may be experiencing miosis!

No, just a problem with spelling in Germanic languages. I'm better in Romance languages, though still not perfect.

Honestly, without postulating some sort of life force I cannot make sense of this:

than if a cell divides is it giving a portion of itself to live into the next generation? yes or no

Though upon a second reading, perhaps you're talking about the fact that cells divide, and a portion of the material/energy from the parent goes into each daughter cell. In which case, you may as well argue that a flame moving from a lighter to a candle wick violates entropy.

the eye constriction and a specific nucleus division regarding the chromosomes count

but you cant spell and no one ever explained a cell-division to you

Sure they did. My genetics textbook isn't beside me right now, or I'd look up the reference to that specific book; I did have a fair bit of biology in college, though.

and you can't spell while you claim to be a professional in the field of biology and forgot what meiosis is.

Nope. I'm a paleontologist--which means I deal with things that, by definition, do NOT undergo cell division of any kind. I haven't used the word meiosis for a while, so it slipped my mind.

Seems like you knew precisely what I was talking about, however.

 

[Bishadi]

just for reference:

Niels Bohr proposed, in 1913, what is now called the Bohr model of the atom. He suggested that electrons could only have certain classical motions:

1.The electrons can only travel in special orbits: at a certain discrete set of distances from the nucleus with specific energies.
2.The electrons of an atom revolve around the nucleus in orbits. These orbits are associated with definite energies and are also called energy shells or energy levels. Thus, the electrons do not continuously lose energy as they travel in a particular orbit. They can only gain and lose energy by jumping from one allowed orbit to another, absorbing or emitting electromagnetic radiation with a frequency ν determined by the energy difference of the levels according to the Planck relation:

 

[aleCcowaN]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[nescafe]

<insults snipped>

but no matter, the FACT is meiosis is a cell division and all the post was for was to try and insult me directly.

It has also been established that miosis is also a recognized alternative spelling of meiosis.

Protip: Do not assume hostile intent when miscommunication is just as likely, unless you like starting flame wars and getting warned/suspended/banned.

not my fault as well what he did was not right (good for anyone)

It certianly does not help that your communication style consists mainly of sentence fragments (with numerous egregious misspellings that you probably think add emphasis) that express incomplete thoughts haphazardly crammed together. I am not at all surprised that Dinwar misinterpreted your post.

 

[Fiona]

So far as I can see we have not moved beyond my post #8. Is there any more to this than personification? If not then I think we are in the territory of early religion like the greek myths: pretty soon this "life itself" will be cutting about in short skirts and inhibiting trees and ponds.

 

[John Jones]

Niels Bohr proposed, in 1913, what is now called the Bohr model of the atom. He suggested that electrons could only have certain classical motions:

He proposed the Bohr model as an example of what electron orbitals were NOT.

 

[Bishadi]

No, just a problem with spelling in Germanic languages. I'm better in Romance languages, though still not perfect.

Honestly, without postulating some sort of life force I cannot make sense of this:

so that invokes an insult to me, that you are postulating based on your own needs?

Though upon a second reading, perhaps you're talking about the fact that cells divide, and a portion of the material/energy from the parent goes into each daughter cell.

which is exactly what i meant on the first pass as it is common sense

In which case, you may as well argue that a flame moving from a lighter to a candle wick violates entropy.

that is you again (postulating i guess)

Sure they did. My genetics textbook isn't beside me right now, or I'd look up the reference to that specific book; I did have a fair bit of biology in college, though.

but not an expert in meiosis or the molecular processes of 'cell division'

Nope. I'm a paleontologist--which means I deal with things that, by definition, do NOT undergo cell division of any kind. I haven't used the word meiosis for a while, so it slipped my mind.

so you imposed what really has nothing to do with your field nor what you could sustain within your expertise.

Seems like you knew precisely what I was talking about, however.

sure, both versions on the first pass

So does procreation share that life is not quite following the law?

 

[Olowkow]

They can only gain and lose energy by jumping from one allowed orbit to another, absorbing or emitting electromagnetic radiation with a frequency ν determined by the energy difference of the levels according to the Planck relation:

Is the speed of these transitions known?

 

[Mojo]

So does procreation share that life is not quite following the law?

No.

 

[Bishadi]

He proposed the Bohr model as an example of what electron orbitals were NOT.

does that mean you do not know how chemistry is describing the bonds (peptide etc) of elements via electron sharing?


just because qm may point out that bohr's analogy has errors does not mean the majority of chemistry is not still using it.

 

[Mojo]

does that mean you do not know how chemistry is describing the bonds (peptide etc) of elements via electron sharing?

The bonds and orbitals are statistical models of where the electrons might be.

 

[Ririon]

does that mean you do not know how chemistry is describing the bonds (peptide etc) of elements via electron sharing?


just because qm may point out that bohr's analogy has errors does not mean the majority of chemistry is not still using it.

The FAIL is strong in this one...

Whenever he is comprehensible, he is wrong. One might be tempted to point out a few of his glaring errors, but really there is not much point. He is not interested, and I doubt there are any lurkers willing to wade through his gibberish jut to get misinformed.

 

[Bishadi]

The FAIL is strong in this one...

i remembered the word used "peptide" and i am sorry and why i came back.

the peptide in my view is a shared resonance between structures even though the newer rendition is about a h2o release of specific reactions.

using that word put me in a trick bag a few years ago as the old analogy is not observed (kind of like the calorie/caloric issue)

ie... the concept evolved within the community


the correct word would be covalent bonds (etc)

my error

Whenever he is comprehensible, he is wrong. One might be tempted to point out a few of his glaring errors,

why not?

dont worry about me, i will get over it. Think about others and their evolution.

He is not interested,

i am always interested in errors that i make as then i WILL grow.

ie.... i will not believe entropy is the rule of the universe ever again; i learned beyond belief (just following the laws (rules))


time to go play elsewhere, see ya!

 

[majamin]

the software impersonates a troll -the plausible diversion-

In an earlier post, I tried replicating the grammar and syntax of the software ... it wasn't too difficult. There are a few phrases that one can repeat with some minor permutations in word use, and get the same result. Maybe it's a programmer with trolling tendencies, that has been trying to bring his (her?) trolling automation to a new level. Bashadi is probably the alpha version. I can't wait for the beta ... oh boy oh boy

 

[majamin]

so far you are quoting me

... only to aid you in your summarization of the hypothesis, don't take it the wrong way, please

and if you read the whole thread, then you would see that EVERY items above has been already addressed a few times over (except; miosis versus meiosis (but it will be as i see it) ie.. one is about the eye (light reaction) the other a cell division (what he was trying to discredit in the first place)

That's why I thought I'd do a quick summary, just so everyone's up to speed and knows what your hypothesis is. I welcome all revisions, by the way, so if there is anything wrong (*ehem* ) with it, please correct me.

All this thread is sharing is that the 'life' abuses entropy (the method of describing the 'intent' or the reductionary 'law' of energy bound within todays physics)

It's really superific and mindblowtacular how you use words like 'abuses' and 'intent'. I'm learning so much from all of the sharing.

if anyone can share how it is wrong to address the life of mass as irrelevant, than please do.

If anyone could understand what you are trying to say, I'm sure they would.