When is an ounce greater than a ton?

[joshua 1 9]

E.T.A. Incidentally, the NOVA video you linked isn't available in my region 'due to right restrictions'.

Maybe it has not played on TV there yet. They do not put it on the internet until it has played on TV.

 

[bhsmte]

Maybe it has not played on TV there yet. They do not put it on the internet until it has played on TV.

Please respond to post 39.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The theory of evolution is clearly stated. You either agree with what the theory states or you dont. You have stated before; "we all know parts of the theory are wrong". You have also stated, you agree with Francis collins take on evolution and he supports the theory strongly. So, which is the accurate statement, because they contradict each other.

Hello, the porch light seems to be on but no one is home. We are talking about how advances in the science of the ancient art of Origami is having an impact on science and the theory of evolution. Nova is calling this a revolution: "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system." This is the nature of evolutionary theory. New information requires revision in the theory.

The question I am asking for the third time is: IF there are a number of solutions yet only ONE CORRECT solution then how can we use evolutionary theory to find the correct solution. In this case we are looking for a protein that can be used to cure aids and other viruses. How can evolution theory be used to build a protein to plug into or bond with the virus to render it inactive and unable to reproduce?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK, I found it on YouTube.

So, it's a nice summary of the applications of origami-style sheet folding techniques, with the slightly off-topic inclusion of protein folding. The only application I hadn't already seen was the analogy between the the cosmic 'network' or 'web' macro structures formed by the collapse of dark matter clouds, and origami folds - spacetime isn't a rigid sheet, so while there may be mathematical similarities, it's only an analogy.

As for protein folding, it's been a known problem for years - I've been running the World Community Grid idle-time application on my computers for 9 years now, and most of the work it's been doing has been protein folding analysis (e.g. Human Proteome Folding). Computer and algorithmic power have been increasing dramatically in recent years, along with a detailed understanding of how proteins fold, so it's a far more productive field than it was a few years ago.

What is it that you would like to discuss about these things, or were you just pointing out an interesting documentary?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How can evolution theory be used to build a protein to plug into or bond with the virus to render it inactive and unable to reproduce?

It can't, really. But we can use our understanding of the genetic mechanisms behind evolution to use bacteria to produce a large number of candidate proteins and then filter out those that bind to the viral surface proteins, as described in the video. I notice they didn't go the alternate route of having the bacteria expose the candidate proteins on their cell walls so the bacteria that produced the binding proteins could be identified and bred again to improve the binding... perhaps it was too difficult, or maybe finding one good binding protein was sufficient.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I accept evolutionary theory in context. You try to take it out of context to try to explain things that it does not explain. They say everyone believes in micro evolution. The problem is with what they call macro evolution.

Macro evolution is just micro evolution over a long period. It's an artificial distinction, like saying you can accept a walk to the shops or the station, but not a 10 mile hike (although I can see why you might find the idea of a 10 mile hike uncomfortable).

 

[joshua 1 9]

It can't, really. But we can use our understanding of the genetic mechanisms behind evolution to use bacteria to produce a large number of candidate proteins and then filter out those that bind to the viral surface proteins, as described in the video. I notice they didn't go the alternate route of having the bacteria expose the candidate proteins on their cell walls so the bacteria that produced the binding proteins could be identified and bred again to improve the binding... perhaps it was too difficult, or maybe finding one good binding protein was sufficient.

They only need one good binding protein and this has shown to be effective in mice so they are ready to experiment on people. I just do not understand HOW they found the one protein that works out of all the many proteins that did not work.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Macro evolution is just micro evolution over a long period.

If you look at origami the pattern was there from the beginning and change took place as the pattern folded or unfolded. With Creationism God knows the end from the beginning. Unfold means (information or a sequence of events) revealed or disclosed. Does this really line up with evolutionary theory?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They only need one good binding protein and this has shown to be effective in mice so they are ready to experiment on people. I just do not understand HOW they found the one protein that works out of all the many proteins that did not work.

I don't know - I suspect there was a lot more behind the scenes than was shown. There are a number of possible ways - for example, the viruses could be filtered out of the protein-virus mixture, leaving behind all the proteins that didn't bind, then the proteins that did bind could be removed from the viruses for analysis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you look at origami the pattern was there from the beginning and change took place as the pattern folded or unfolded.

The origami pattern was where? What do you think that has to do with micro-macro evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

Hello, the porch light seems to be on but no one is home. We are talking about how advances in the science of the ancient art of Origami is having an impact on science and the theory of evolution. Nova is calling this a revolution: "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system." This is the nature of evolutionary theory. New information requires revision in the theory.

The question I am asking for the third time is: IF there are a number of solutions yet only ONE CORRECT solution then how can we use evolutionary theory to find the correct solution. In this case we are looking for a protein that can be used to cure aids and other viruses. How can evolution theory be used to build a protein to plug into or bond with the virus to render it inactive and unable to reproduce?

LOL. Do you then wish to avoid addressing contradictory statements you have made?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

LOL. Do you then wish to avoid addressing contradictory statements you have made?

I think he's misunderstood what the documentary was saying - it described to how nature uses origami-like folds to pack leaves, wings, brain surfaces, etc., into small spaces, and the realization of how this works (e.g. the folds are emergent from the growth of constrained surfaces) gives us a new understanding. It doesn't change evolutionary theory. It's the same kind of radical generalization and simplification of ideas that occurred in the 1980's when it was discovered that growth - particularly plant growth - followed simple fractal rules to produce characteristic complex self-similar structures.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think he's misunderstood what the documentary was saying - it described to how nature uses origami-like folds to pack leaves, wings, brain surfaces, etc., into small spaces, and the realization of how this works (e.g. the folds are emergent from the growth of constrained surfaces) gives us a new understanding. It doesn't change evolutionary theory. It's the same kind of radical generalization and simplification of ideas that occurred in the 1980's when it was discovered that growth - particularly plant growth - followed simple fractal rules to produce characteristic complex self-similar structures.

Why are we not surprised that he doesn't understand it?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't know - I suspect there was a lot more behind the scenes than was shown. There are a number of possible ways - for example, the viruses could be filtered out of the protein-virus mixture, leaving behind all the proteins that didn't bind, then the proteins that did bind could be removed from the viruses for analysis.

maybe this is the research they are talking about New drug could cure nearly any viral infection Yet you say nothing is evolving and nothing is changing.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why are we not surprised that he doesn't understand it?

If I understood then there would be no reason for me to be here asking questions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I understood then there would be no reason for me to be here asking questions.

But you obviously didn't understand it, and your question has no bearing on the perceived connection of origami and evolution.
Also, by maths, you cannot fold an object that has the mass of a ton in to an object that has the mass of an ounce. It's impossible. It will still weight a ton.

 

[bhsmte]

I think he's misunderstood what the documentary was saying - it described to how nature uses origami-like folds to pack leaves, wings, brain surfaces, etc., into small spaces, and the realization of how this works (e.g. the folds are emergent from the growth of constrained surfaces) gives us a new understanding. It doesn't change evolutionary theory. It's the same kind of radical generalization and simplification of ideas that occurred in the 1980's when it was discovered that growth - particularly plant growth - followed simple fractal rules to produce characteristic complex self-similar structures.

I know. I was attempting to point out his blatant contradictory statements in regards to agreeing or disagreeing with the theory. He is all over the place.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The origami pattern was where? What do you think that has to do with micro-macro evolution?

The point is that God knows the end from the beginning. That is a contradiction to evolutionary theory. At least Stephen Joy Gould's version of the theory. He believed that if you were to start all over again at the beginning you would get totally different results. If you look at Evo Devo then they believe that evolution follows universal laws. So you can go anywhere in the universe and you will pretty much end up with the same results.

Gould also contradicted his fellow Harvard professor with the discussion of punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism. Maybe that is why Gould died early and is no longer with us because of the lack of harmony that he seemed to exhibit. While his co-author is still with us.

Obituary: Stephen Jay Gould

 

[joshua 1 9]

He is all over the place.

I am a product of evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you say nothing is evolving and nothing is changing.

No, just no - I don't say that. If you don't understand what I've said, ask. If you want to quote me, go ahead; but don't misrepresent what I say.