Peter Berean‘s attack on my model of energy as information led him to invent or re-introduce the term “Bio-Functional Information.” The comment from Greg Thurston (below) can be placed into the context of Schrodinger’s claims from “What is Life?”
For instance, Schrodinger challenged de Vries definition of the term mutation with this entry:
“Indeed, in the case of higher animals we know the kind of orderliness they feed upon well enough, viz. the extremely well-ordered state of matter in more or less complicated organic compounds, which serve them as foodstuffs. After utilizing it they return it in a very much degraded form -not entirely degraded, however, for plants can still make use of it. (These, of course, have their most power supply of ‘negative entropy’ the sunlight.) (pp. 73 and 74)”
See: What is life when it is not protected from virus driven entropy?
Greg makes it appear that I am the only person who knows Peter Berean is trying to introduce a term that must be defined before others realize it is synonymous with de Vries 1902 definition of mutation. Peter Berean’s treachery could conceivably delay scientific progress for at least one more generation if students are taught that “Bio-Functional Information” is different that energy as information.
The success of all threats to scientific progress depends on the misrepresentations of theorists, and definitions are one way to eliminate energy as information from biologically-based cause and effect. De Vries definition of mutation did that and his definition has served biologically uninformed theorists very well during the past 114 years.
Sudden energy jumps were used to link the assumptions of theorists to claims about mutation-driven evolution, which supposedly occurred via natural selection. All serious scientists have since realized that natural selection for energy as information must be linked from codon usage to energy-dependent changes, which link the physiology of reproduction to supercoiled DNA in all living genera.
Theorists are not likely to ever accept that fact. The levels of complexity are too difficult for pseudoscientists to integrate, which helps to explain why many of them are also atheists or agnostics. When creationists tout the same pseudoscientific nonsense, it shows why we have come so close to the virus-driven apocalypse.
Greg Thurston wrote:
December 17 at 10:59am
James Kohl – it was nice to see your name in the comments on this thread when it first appeared. Then it was quite a surprise to see the nature of your comments. It’s been a while since we connected. I believe you are onto something, but somehow you are unable to convey it in a way that anyone (or at least most) can assimilate. As you may recall, I even thought for a while that I could help unpack it enough to make it clear (to me and then others), but the more I waded into it, the denser the thicket seemed to get, and I was overwhelmed. I don’t have the time. I am so disappointed to see the tone of your comment [to] Peter Berean. I thought you were above ad hominem et al. I hope you can take this as not an insult, but a caution from one who would like to be considered a friend, that it seems perhaps ego has clouded your ability to be gracious and have courteous discourse with others who see things differently. It is amazing to me how much ego commandeers intellect in so many instances. It is a threat to us all, of which we must be exceedingly diligent to resist.
See also: What is Life?
“How often do we still hear that quantum effects can have little relevance in the study of biology, or even that we eat food in order to gain energy?” — Roger Penrose (8 August 1991)
I get the impression that Greg Thurston might think Roger Penrose is an ego-maniacal threat to Peter Berean‘s intellect.
Perhaps, someone like Greg Thurston will first ask Peter Berean to tell others the difference between a “mutation” and “bio-functional information.” For contrast, in the context of my model, the fixation of energy-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions links biophysically constrained cell type differentiation to the physiology of reproduction in all living genera.
Theorists do not have a model for how that occurs in the context of biophysical constraints. They have theories, which helps to explain why Peter Berean is tweaking the theories via his usage of words. He knows nothing about natural selection for energy-dependent codon optimality. That requires the invention and/or reuse of the term “bio-functional information.” It is a great way for pseudoscientists to dismiss everything known to serious scientists via a vague term.
Add a Comment