Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:28:24 GMT
(Bob) wrote:
(snipped)

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:57:19 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:



Bob is pointing out the hole or gap of logic in biology in that it is
just
a mere opinion as to what makes a "kingdom" in biology. No true
science-measure determines a kingdom in biology. Just consensus and
opinion. Find enough differences in a group of living things and
some men meet in a smoke filled dark room and announce that a
new kingdom in biology is now announced.


Yes, that is basically correct. Why? Because "kingdom" is not a
reality, but a manmade label used to try to simplify the complexities
of biology. Long ago, our observations could be accommodated by
dividing all organisms into the two categories plants and animals. As
we learned more, that classification became less useful, and others
were developed. Nature did not change, but we knew more, so we needed
more categories.

Bob, there is a flaw in your argument above. I don't suppose you
will admit to it. The flaw is that if you dismiss "kingdom" then you have
to fall down to the next category which is phylum.

Now I could present a whole new thread telling us how many phylums
there should exist in biology from concepts of physics. But I am not going
to endeavor that project, at least for now.

Bob and I have exchanged ideas on the Internet for how long? At least
5 years. And I seem to detect from Bob more of a personal quarrel rather
than sticking to science. What I mean is that the ideas I present and try
to further, Bob seems to take the tactic of either the idea is farfetched
and if the idea cannot be eliminated as farfetched then Bob takes the
other end of the spectrum as saying my idea is useless. So, Bob, please
examine your own interests in my threads. Are you here to really
dive into science, or are you here to make adhominem. I enjoy Bob's
comments and hope the above is not a putoff but as a help in future
discussions. One should always ask oneself what business they have on
the Internet science groups. And for me the answer has mostly been
the furtherance of ideas and especially new ideas. If you cannot stick
to the science and go wandering off into personal jibes, then it's time
to take a vacation from the Internet.



In groups such as bacteria, there is considerable debate about whether
any of usual taxonomic classifications mean much.

Really Bob, or is it that you opposed me at one end saying that Kingdom
correlated to Physics forces is farfetched. And now you want to oppose
the idea on the other end of the spectrum by saying that even if such a
correlation exists that it is useless and people should dismiss it.

As I said above, you commit the error that as we drop down to phylum
should that be a "useless concept" also.



It is fundamental to our modern understanding of biology that there
are not discrete, non-overlapping types of organisms. No matter how we
classify them, there should be (and often are) "intermediate" cases.
That is, it is part of our understanding of biology to realize that
the kingdoms cannot be defined absolutely.

I had to read your first sentence in the above paragraph several times to
try to make sense of it. I suppose what is faulty about it is the word
"fundamental".
The last sentence makes clear sense. Now, let me interject a physics
concept
by saying this sentence: That is, it is part of our understanding of
physics
to realize that the forces cannot be defined absolutely.

And that would be a true sentence in physics for although we focus our
attention on the force of gravity in some experiments we well know that
other forces are "in play" also. When we do the Coulomb experiment
we know that the force of gravity is also at play but we ignore it.



Further, altho recent changes in categories are largely due to
increasing knowledge, over the long term the nature of categories will
change. Long long ago there were no plants or animals by any
definition -- tho there was perfectly good life. Some eons from now,
the categories plant and animal may no longer be useful, because there
may be none of them -- but may be new categories of organisms unknown
(and unpredictable) to us now. There is nothing fundamental about
these categories.

I'm not suggesting that terms such as animal and plant serve no
purpose, but no matter how we develop those terms they will have
limitations. So your basic point above is true and will always be
true; that is the nature of biology.

bob

If we divide the Universe into the two entities of living and nonliving.
Now we assume the Atom Totality theory whose cosmic purpose is to
nucleosynthesize. Where stars are hot nucleosynthesis and life is cold
nucleosynthesis. So, in physics there is the cosmic duality of particle
and wave.

Consider cold-nucleosynthesis that Life undertakes as wave, and consider
the rest of the universe with its nonlife of stars and galaxies as
hot-nucleosynthesis as particles. DNA even has a wavelike appearance.

So, if the Universe is just one atom creating more atoms inside itself,
then,
under that picture, cold nucleosynthesis by a plastic and fluid lifeforms
is a Cosmic-type of wave whose end goal or purpose is to create a
new particle which is the next Atom Totality.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:55:40 GMT Bob wrote:



Not a flaw at all. The basic biology I present above is equally true
for all classification levels. All of biological classification is an
arbitrary scheme, and has no absolute meaning. It is "useful", but not
right or wrong.

The closest thing to an exception is the attempt to define species in
terms of interbreeding (inability to interbreed). But even that has
limitations (doesn't help with asexual organisms) and is much debated.

bob

Disagree. With that type of attitude Mendeleev would have never begun
to have found patterns that compose the Periodic Table of Elements. With
that type of attitude, Kepler would have never found patterns of planetary
orbits. And with that attitude the Elementary Particles of Physics would
always be a hodge podge mess.

Bob, I don't think you are saying anything about the science of biology,
but rather your own personal attitude that classification in biology will
never be refined into patterns and laws and theories. I never expected you to
be so
pessimistic and so wrong.

We do have a classification scheme in biology of the latest-revised
Linnaeus system based on shared characteristics. It is useful. But I want
to replace it with one based on physics principles.

Classification leads to patterns which leads to laws and principles of
science.
I do not know why you want to be so pessimistic on biology.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:28:24 GMT
(Bob) wrote:
(snipped)

On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 14:57:19 -0600, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:



Bob is pointing out the hole or gap of logic in biology in that it is
just
a mere opinion as to what makes a "kingdom" in biology. No true
science-measure determines a kingdom in biology. Just consensus and
opinion. Find enough differences in a group of living things and
some men meet in a smoke filled dark room and announce that a
new kingdom in biology is now announced.


Yes, that is basically correct. Why? Because "kingdom" is not a
reality, but a manmade label used to try to simplify the complexities
of biology. Long ago, our observations could be accommodated by
dividing all organisms into the two categories plants and animals. As
we learned more, that classification became less useful, and others
were developed. Nature did not change, but we knew more, so we needed
more categories.

Bob, there is a flaw in your argument above. I don't suppose you
will admit to it. The flaw is that if you dismiss "kingdom" then you have
to fall down to the next category which is phylum.

Now I could present a whole new thread telling us how many phylums
there should exist in biology from concepts of physics. But I am not going
to endeavor that project, at least for now.

Bob and I have exchanged ideas on the Internet for how long? At least
5 years. And I seem to detect from Bob more of a personal quarrel rather
than sticking to science. What I mean is that the ideas I present and try
to further, Bob seems to take the tactic of either the idea is farfetched
and if the idea cannot be eliminated as farfetched then Bob takes the
other end of the spectrum as saying my idea is useless. So, Bob, please
examine your own interests in my threads. Are you here to really
dive into science, or are you here to make adhominem. I enjoy Bob's
comments and hope the above is not a putoff but as a help in future
discussions. One should always ask oneself what business they have on
the Internet science groups. And for me the answer has mostly been
the furtherance of ideas and especially new ideas. If you cannot stick
to the science and go wandering off into personal jibes, then it's time
to take a vacation from the Internet.



In groups such as bacteria, there is considerable debate about whether
any of usual taxonomic classifications mean much.

Really Bob, or is it that you opposed me at one end saying that Kingdom
correlated to Physics forces is farfetched. And now you want to oppose
the idea on the other end of the spectrum by saying that even if such a
correlation exists that it is useless and people should dismiss it.

As I said above, you commit the error that as we drop down to phylum
should that be a "useless concept" also.



It is fundamental to our modern understanding of biology that there
are not discrete, non-overlapping types of organisms. No matter how we
classify them, there should be (and often are) "intermediate" cases.
That is, it is part of our understanding of biology to realize that
the kingdoms cannot be defined absolutely.

I had to read your first sentence in the above paragraph several times to
try to make sense of it. I suppose what is faulty about it is the word
"fundamental".
The last sentence makes clear sense. Now, let me interject a physics
concept
by saying this sentence: That is, it is part of our understanding of
physics
to realize that the forces cannot be defined absolutely.

And that would be a true sentence in physics for although we focus our
attention on the force of gravity in some experiments we well know that
other forces are "in play" also. When we do the Coulomb experiment
we know that the force of gravity is also at play but we ignore it.



Further, altho recent changes in categories are largely due to
increasing knowledge, over the long term the nature of categories will
change. Long long ago there were no plants or animals by any
definition -- tho there was perfectly good life. Some eons from now,
the categories plant and animal may no longer be useful, because there
may be none of them -- but may be new categories of organisms unknown
(and unpredictable) to us now. There is nothing fundamental about
these categories.

I'm not suggesting that terms such as animal and plant serve no
purpose, but no matter how we develop those terms they will have
limitations. So your basic point above is true and will always be
true; that is the nature of biology.

bob

If we divide the Universe into the two entities of living and nonliving.
Now we assume the Atom Totality theory whose cosmic purpose is to
nucleosynthesize. Where stars are hot nucleosynthesis and life is cold
nucleosynthesis. So, in physics there is the cosmic duality of particle
and wave.

Consider cold-nucleosynthesis that Life undertakes as wave, and consider
the rest of the universe with its nonlife of stars and galaxies as
hot-nucleosynthesis as particles. DNA even has a wavelike appearance.

So, if the Universe is just one atom creating more atoms inside itself,
then,
under that picture, cold nucleosynthesis by a plastic and fluid lifeforms
is a Cosmic-type of wave whose end goal or purpose is to create a
new particle which is the next Atom Totality.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:55:40 GMT Bob wrote:



Not a flaw at all. The basic biology I present above is equally true
for all classification levels. All of biological classification is an
arbitrary scheme, and has no absolute meaning. It is "useful", but not
right or wrong.

The closest thing to an exception is the attempt to define species in
terms of interbreeding (inability to interbreed). But even that has
limitations (doesn't help with asexual organisms) and is much debated.

bob

Disagree. With that type of attitude Mendeleev would have never begun
to have found patterns that compose the Periodic Table of Elements. With
that type of attitude, Kepler would have never found patterns of planetary
orbits. And with that attitude the Elementary Particles of Physics would
always be a hodge podge mess.

Bob, I don't think you are saying anything about the science of biology,
but rather your own personal attitude that classification in biology will
never be refined into patterns and laws and theories. I never expected you to
be so
pessimistic and so wrong.

We do have a classification scheme in biology of the latest-revised
Linnaeus system based on shared characteristics. It is useful. But I want
to replace it with one based on physics principles.

Classification leads to patterns which leads to laws and principles of
science.
I do not know why you want to be so pessimistic on biology.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

either the idea is farfetched and if the idea cannot be eliminated as
farfetched then Bob takes the other end of the spectrum as saying my idea is
useless.
Sorry, Mr. Plutonium. Your ideas are both farfetched and useless. Get a life.


Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"The trouble with people is not that they don't know but that they know so much
that ain't so."
Josh Billings (Henry Wheeler Shaw), 1818-1885

(Iris Cohen) wrote in message ...
Your ideas are both farfetched and useless.

Archie-Pu's ideas are quixotic, one might say -- except that would be
an offense to the memory of the ingenious hidalgo, whose only fault
was that he was too well-read rather than utterly uninterested in
knowledge.

--
Chris Green