New Paradigm in Biology
Tom Hendricks
trying to explain a bad mother in law's behavior through the actions
of her electrons.
Due to the groundbreaking discoveries of Watson Crick, biology has
concentrated on molecular biology and replication. I suggest that it
is time for a new paradigm, not replication, but metabolism, the
other side of the coin. Not replication on the molecular level, but
metabolism on larger overall levels - specially the impact of the
opposite forces of catabolic and anabolic as they have evolved into
other processes.
These posts have given good evidence that catabolic and anabolic are
separate processes, that they are regulated separately, and that they
have evolved separately to other aspects of life, yet no one seems
willing to address that or its obvious ramifications and insights.
Why? This seems like a big development. Comment?
Lorentz
I can find no "obvious" ramifications or insights. I can't
address what I can't find. I do not see the importance of this
dichotomy. You haven't even made it clear how a process can be
classified as either catabolic or anabolic. I think I am willing, but
I can't see it.
The number two is not magic. Stating that two words are polar
opposites doesn't make them important.
DK
If you go back 30-40 years ago, you will find that of all the
biological things on molecular level, it was biochemistry
that totally dominated biology. Precisely what you have in mind,
metabolism. Eventually though, biochemistry proved to be too
difficult beyond purely descriptive level while molecular
biology/genetics was becoming progresively easier.
Grant money are given for new results. New results are easier
to obtain when you deal with DNA.
DK
John Edser
to have been reposted to the group]
Tom Hendricks <tom-he...@att.net> wrote:-
> Trying to explain all biology through the molecular level only is
> like trying to explain a bad mother in law's behavior through the
> actions of her electrons.
>
> Due to the groundbreaking discoveries of Watson Crick, biology has
> concentrated on molecular biology and replication. I suggest that it
> is time for a new paradigm, not replication, but metabolism, the
> other side of the coin. Not replication on the molecular level, but
> metabolism on larger overall levels - specially the impact of the
> opposite forces of catabolic and anabolic as they have evolved into
> other processes.
>
> These posts have given good evidence that catabolic and anabolic are
> separate processes, that they are regulated separately, and that they
> have evolved separately to other aspects of life, yet no one seems
> willing to address that or its obvious ramifications and insights.
>
> Why? This seems like a big development. Comment?
JE:-
A new paradigm absolutely requires the falsification of the old one! The
sciences do not work like a court of law only requiring the vote of a
jury. We do not decide what theories are discarded, nature does, via
empirical refutation.
So, why don't you outline your understanding of the old theory, describe
its empirical refutation and then go on to explain what your proposed
new theory actually is and why it can incorporate the observational fact
that you propose falsified the old theory?
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
Tom Hendricks
Metabolism is important. This is evolution of metabolism.
Tom Hendricks
> [This is a resend. The original was posted on 17/12/09 but appears not
> to have been reposted to the group]
>
>
>
>
>
There was no old theory. No one thought in these terms before.
Lorentz
> These posts have given good evidence that catabolic and anabolic are
> separate processes, that they are regulated separately, and that they
> have evolved separately to other aspects of life, yet no one seems
> willing to address that �or its obvious ramifications and insights.
>
> Why? This seems like a big development. Comment?
Edser makes an interesting point that I would like to expand. If
it's a "new paradign", then it has to supersede the "old paradign."
What paradign, exactly is being superseded?
Perhaps you are not really talking about a "new paradign." Maybe
you are trying to restate what is already in the scientific
literature. Or maybe you are making a model that doesn't contradict
the old sciences, but is useful under a narrow set of circumstances
that you haven't told us yet.
I suggest that if you are serious about the conjecture, you
resort to constructive criticism. Point out an article or study that
was done wrong according to your "new paradign." I suggest that you
avoid attacking scientist in general. Stick with constructive
criticism. Cite an investigation where the investigators would have
done better if they had only kept your "new paradign" in mind.
John Edser
>> JE:- A new paradigm absolutely requires the falsification of the
>> old one! The sciences do not work like a court of law only
>> requiring the vote of a jury. We do not decide what theories are
>> discarded, nature does, via empirical refutation.
>>
>> So, why don't you outline your understanding of the old theory,
>> describe its empirical refutation and then go on to explain what
>> your proposed new theory actually is and why it can incorporate the
>> observational fact that you propose falsified the old theory?
> There was no old theory. No one thought in these terms before.
JE:-
You have be claiming to be able to explain existing observations in an
entirely new way. IOW, you _are_ claiming that the only existing
falsifiable theory which can explain existing observations of nature now
stands falsified via at least one empirical observation _not named by
you_. Only this claim can validly allow your falsifiable theory to
replace the existing one for the same set, or more, of observations.
If you are not claiming to be able to explain older observations in an
new and better way then all you can possibly be claiming to do
is present an explanation for observations which do not currently exist
which I am sure you will agree, represents an absurdity....
John Edser
> Edser makes an interesting point that I would like to expand. If
> it's a "new paradign", then it has to supersede the "old paradign."
> What paradign, exactly is being superseded?
> Perhaps you are not really talking about a "new paradign." Maybe
> you are trying to restate what is already in the scientific
> literature. Or maybe you are making a model that doesn't contradict
> the old sciences, but is useful under a narrow set of circumstances
> that you haven't told us yet.
JE:-
This represents the most dangerous alternative. Historically, non
falsifiable simplified/oversimplified mathematically based models of
falsifiable Darwinism have been allowed to invalidly replace the theory
they were simplified/oversimplified from.
Tom Hendricks
This is a two way street. I've listed many strong arguments. More on
the way.
How about some arguments of yours or anyone else that prove this
couldn't be right.
Prove to me catabolic and anabolic are now blended, are regulated
together, and
could not evolve separately.
Alan Meyer
"Lorentz" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hguhhn$29a5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
> On Dec 16, 2:56 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:
>> Trying to explain all biology through the molecular level only is like
>> trying to explain a bad mother in law's behavior through the actions
>> of her electrons.
This is very well put. Explaining macro events on a micro level
is impossibly difficult. If your mother-in-law likes coffee in
the morning, trying to explain that by reference to the quantum
properties of 10^35 (or whatever) atoms in her body will get lost
before the explanation even starts.
>> Due to the groundbreaking discoveries of Watson Crick, biology has
>> concentrated on molecular biology and replication. I suggest that it
>> is time for a new paradigm, not replication, but metabolism, the
>> other side of the coin. Not replication on the molecular level, but
>> metabolism on larger overall levels - specially the impact of the
>> opposite forces of catabolic and anabolic as they have evolved into
>> other processes.
It strikes me you are doing exactly what you just said we can't
do. The study of metabolism is, as you discuss it (anabolism and
catabolism), if anything, just a specialized area of molecular
biology or biochemistry.
>> These posts have given good evidence that catabolic and anabolic are
>> separate processes, that they are regulated separately, and that they
>> have evolved separately to other aspects of life, yet no one seems
>> willing to address that or its obvious ramifications and insights.
>>
>> Why? This seems like a big development. Comment?
I've already addressed this in a number of posts from some months
ago and won't repeat myself.
> I can find no "obvious" ramifications or insights. I can't
> address what I can't find. I do not see the importance of this
> dichotomy. You haven't even made it clear how a process can be
> classified as either catabolic or anabolic. I think I am willing, but
> I can't see it.
> The number two is not magic. Stating that two words are polar
> opposites doesn't make them important.
Exactly! Metabolism is certainly important in life. So is
genetics. So is homeostasis. So is cellular organization. So
is response to light. So is cell signalling. So is ... we can
name quite a few things.
Tom is a very nice guy but I think he's practicing metaphysics,
not science. He's gotten this fixed idea that two words explain
the world. He never actually says anything about metabolism. I
haven't read his postings in a while but, among the many I read
some time ago, I don't recall a single discussion in any of his
postings about an actual anabolic or catabolic reaction. I can't
recall any actual empirical science in his postings, just
metaphysical speculation about dualities and oppositions. It's
more like Hegel than Watson or Crick.
Tom, tell us how the behavior of a bad mother-in-law, or a good
one, is explained by the supposed "opposite forces" of catabolism
and anabolism. Show us how metabolic processes determine the
badness or goodness of the mother-in-law. No dithering about
with generalities please. Let's have some info about specific
chemical reactions involved in the mother-in-law!
I don't really require an explanation of mothers-in-law. I agree
with your earlier point about molecular biology not being
suitable for explaining high level behavior. But do give us some
specific biochemistry. Tell us how some specific metabolic
chemical reactions act as a motor of evolution. Let's leave the
vagaries aside and have some real empirical science.
Thanks.
Alan
Tom Hendricks
> "Lorentz" <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hguhhn$29a5$1...@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> > On Dec 16, 2:56 pm, Tom Hendricks <tom-hendri...@att.net> wrote:
> >> Trying to explain all biology through the molecular level only is like
> >> trying to explain a bad mother in law's behavior through the actions
> >> of her electrons.
>
> is impossibly difficult. �If your mother-in-law likes coffee in
> the morning, trying to explain that by reference to the quantum
> properties of 10^35 (or whatever) atoms in her body will get lost
> before the explanation even starts.
>
> >> concentrated on molecular biology and replication. I suggest that it
> >> is time for a new paradigm, not replication, but metabolism, the
> >> other side of the coin. Not replication on the molecular level, but
> >> metabolism on larger overall levels - specially the impact of the
> >> opposite forces of catabolic and anabolic as they have evolved into
> >> other processes.
>
> do. �The study of metabolism is, as you discuss it (anabolism and
> catabolism), if anything, just a specialized area of molecular
> biology or biochemistry.
>
> >> separate processes, that they are regulated separately, and that they
> >> have evolved separately to other aspects of life, yet no one seems
> >> willing to address that or its obvious ramifications and insights.
>
> >> Why? This seems like a big development. Comment?
>
> ago and won't repeat myself.
>
> > address what I can't find. I do not see the importance of this
> > dichotomy. You haven't even made it clear how a process can be
> > classified as either catabolic or anabolic. I think I am willing, but
> > I can't see it.
> > � � The number two is not magic. Stating that two words are polar
> > opposites doesn't make them important.
>
I have in many posts - specifics of anabolic and catabolic splits,
specifics of how I suggest they evolved.
Basically to repeat, catabolic evolved to
digestion, breaking down non-self, protection, and waste out,
and anabolic evolved to all ways of building up.
I think to do anything I have to first tackle the idea
of 1. the two evolved separately, and 2. they did not blend.
Do we agree on those two points?
When all see that that has to be true, then I can more easily proceed
in my argument.
Metabolism is a dichotomy, but it is the dichotomy.
The others you suggest would not cover all metabolism (though heat
or hotter and colder, may in a vague way).
See new post, and re look at some of the old ones OR.
Let me e-mail you or anyone else a file of most everything so far to
peruse.
>
> Thanks.
>
> � � Alan
Lorentz
> On Dec 27, 10:02 pm, Lorentz <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> the way.
> How about some arguments of yours or anyone else that prove this
> couldn't be right.
> Prove to me catabolic and anabolic are now blended, are regulated
> together, and
> could not evolve separately.
Is your paradign that they are not blended, or that they can not
evolve separately?
That is the problem. None of your statements and examples tell
us your hypothesis. We can't even tell what your hypothesis doesn't
say!
1) What doesn't your hypothesis say?
2) How could your model be falsified, even in principle?
3) How can anyone determine whether a process is anabolic, or
catabolic?
4) What is it new about anabolic and catabolic processes that you
found, distinct from other biologists.
Tom Hendricks
> > This is a two way street. I've listed many strong arguments. More on
> > the way.
> > How about some arguments of yours or anyone else that prove this
> > couldn't be right.
> > Prove to me catabolic and anabolic are now blended, are regulated
> > together, and
> > could not evolve separately.
>
> Is your paradign that they are not blended, or that they can not
> evolve separately?
> � � � � That is the problem. None of your statements and examples tell
> us your hypothesis. We can't even tell what your hypothesis doesn't
> say!
I've said it over and over again. I think you are trying not to
understand.
> 1) � �What doesn't your hypothesis say?
It says that catabolic processes and anabolic processes are often
separate and have often evolved separately to many new aspects of
life.
All metabolism is either evolved forms of catabolic processes, or
anabolic processes.
> 2) � �How could your model be falsified, even in principle?
First it has to be understood. When you understand it then we can go
further.
I would suggest that first it has to be proven that catabolic and
anabolic processes
are often separate - prove that by showing examples where they are
separate now.
Disprove it by showing that there are no examples where they are
separate now.
Secondly it has to be proven that catabolic and anabolic processes
have evolved separately - prove that
by showing an instance where a metabolic process evolved separately.
Disprove it by showing that there are no instances where a metabolic
process evolved separately.
Thirdly it has to be proven that all metabolic processes are either
catabolic or anabolic.
Disprove it by showing metabolic processes that are neither catabolic
or anabolic.
> 3) � �How can anyone determine whether a �process is anabolic, or
> catabolic?
This is more difficult. The basic definition works for basic
processes.
We know all metabolism is one or the other.
But how catabolic evolved to more complex separate processes in some
cases is not crystal clear.
I have suggested that breaking down molecules type catabolism has
evolved to digestion, and other aspects of digestion, waste out, and
attack
and digestion of non-self. This is more conjecture at this point.
> 4) � �What is it new about anabolic and catabolic processes that you
> found, distinct from other biologists.
This is obvious in my many posts. See the many lists, posts, etc.
Somehow I doubt that this will overcome an inherent unfair
stubbornness against the idea.