|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2012,16:58)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 31 2012,22:13)|
All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.
As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.
I can see a few scenarios following.
(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.
(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.
(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.
(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.
What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:
The issue is not whether you referenced sources; it is whether you understood them. The evidence says that you don't understand them. I've already seen the item in your list that was also referenced in the Wikipedia article. As I noted, it does not support your original description.
There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory:
Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.
I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.
You have a remarkably obtuse way with words. The "confusion" is quite evidently that you haven't understood what your sources have to say about biological topics.
Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.
The problem is not a lack of detail, the problem is a lack of understanding and accuracy.
In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly.
Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:
You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:
In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.
You were talking about the citric acid cycle. Offering a graphic of the reverse citric acid cycle is not relevant to a claim concerning the citric acid cycle.
Plus, you need to be more specific: what step in the process are you claiming involves something that is split in half to produce two identical molecules? Where is it? What is the name of the dimer you are talking about?
The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.
Big whoop. Stuff existing that *could* be controlled is not an issue. Finding stuff that *requires* a "designer" of the sort who also happens to have setting universal constants in his toolkit is.
At least we have resolved which response strategy you would select. You picked option (1), the "Timecube" emulation option. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker