Molecular Evolution Lecture Introduction and Section 1 i) The Laws of Biology
UNDER EDITING
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
[edit] Jan 23,
Finally got around to reading that DG, a whole 15 mins it took. Very well done, organized, informative, and interesting. I know some people think you are just showing off, but it is obvious that you are truly dedicated to communicating this stuff to we laymen. Thanks friend.
.... some funny thoughts I had while reading,
Cells have consciousness. Cells are like little tiny people ! People are like giant gods in both male/female form, both being equal in the creation of more gods !
Quote: "Monera constitutes a class of single-celled organisms that makes up almost 99% of the biological diversity on Earth. Eukaryotic cells are very different. They store their DNA in a separate sequestered compartment inside the cell itself. "
... then billions of cells become partners and walk swim squirm and fly around. Some reached for the sun and became trees. Cool.
Would that include both types of cells as in an animal ?
Godly it IS ! I am the big bang , the sun is my close relative.
I like when you also write philosophy, where's your old essays ?
---------------- Jan 3
what do you think about this ?
"Surviving the Singularity" , 20 min cool ending http://www.dharmaflix.com/wiki/Surviving_the_Singularity
It's about consciousness ??????
Atheism Books.
Sheesh. An hour ago, I could have done it. Now, I must sleep or I will die of exhaustion. Tomorrow I leave for North Carolina for three days, but I'll take my laptop. If I can gank any free wireless, I'll give it a read.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It's rather late; but I did get to the paragraphs on "haploid". It looks good so far, and I like the organization of your ideas i.e. the rules of biology.
I'll have to read it some more tomorrow or later, but maybe b/c of it being so late I did get confused on the haploid stuff.
EDIT: So yea, everything before 'haploid' I could understand. If I can bring myself to focus, I wait to read more.
the ploidy refers to the number of copies of the genetic material coding for the organism are present in a cell. We humans have diploid cells, meaing two copies, since we recieve one from the father and one from the mother.
In certain cells during development of an embryo, the genome can duplicate many times without cell division. The result is that the cell grows to enormous size and has over 1,000 copies of the genome inside it. Such cells are therefore polyploid cells.
A haploid cell has only one copy of the genome. Any organism that reproduces without sex, such as bacterial organisms, will all be haploid, since their genetic line is passed directly from one parent to one progeny.
The sex cells or gametes of sexually reprduding diploid cells will also be haploid. They will also only have one copy of the genome present inside them, because two of them need to come together to form a diploid cell. The process by which haploids can be produced from diploids is called meiosis.
Here is a simple example that may aid understanding. The common baker's yeast can undergo the yeast mating cycle. It is quite simple. Yeast are haploid organisms. However, there are two types called mating types, and these two can fuse, in a manner similar to sexual reproduction, therefore forming one fused diploid cell. These diploid cells cannot reproduce, however, starvation of the yeast can induce sporulation so that the diploid yeast undergo meiosis and four haploids are produced by a single diploid yeast. And then the cycle continues.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
fantastic, thankyou deludedgod.
readable
Yes. It flowed well. Very technical of course. One would have to be interested in the topic to find it readable I think.
understandable
I think so. I certainly would not like to sit an exam on the subject matter. I have only read it once. But I think it is a good start for me and has sunk in and will hopefully re-emerge on further readings I do on topics of molecular biology.
I noticed the technique of suddenly introducing a new term after defining it, the term organelle:
...they also have membranes defining structures inside the cell, such as the Golgi apparatus, the endoplasmic recticulum, the nucleus, the sarcoplasmic recticulum, the peroxisomes, the mitochondria, the lyosomes etc. Some of these many organelles will crop..
I guess it's not that hard to understand that you implicitely defined what an organelle is, I don't know, I just noticed this, not sure whether it is significant.
usable
Not in the immediate sense. It's usable as a base to understand more about the topics. I doubt I could find any practical use for this yet. But with subsequent learning I'm sure it will help in my understanding and appreciation of the universe, and hopefully as knowledge to mow down creationists with.
An organelle is a membrane bound body inside a cell. An organelle is to a cell what an organ is to a body. A vesicle is a specific type of organelle, a compartment which holds substances for transport around the cell. Cells have very extensive networks of transporting substances enclosed in vesicles, and such is called intracellular vesicular traffic.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Oh yeah, this is really easy to read compared to a lot of the stuff you normally go into on the forums.
I think this is going to be a really good series of lectures.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Fucking tease.
I need more!
I hope that was the reaction you wanted.
Perhaps you could include a quick section on taxonomy explaining that it isn't just 'plants and animals' like the majority of students are taught in high school biology class.
It definitely reads well. Although the "we'll discuss this later" parts are driving me insane. lol.
Why here instead of 'Evolution of Life' forum?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
This might sound stupid - so keep in mind that I have not background in this subject matter.
I found it confusing that the the rules and common features were intermingled. I have to admit I was getting lost there. Perhaps it's just a matter of formatting though.
The "common features" is simply a subset of one of the "rules", the "rule" being that all life on Earth is made of cells. This is subheaded by a list of common features of all cells.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What is your intended audience? Readability for me may not be the same as for others. I have enough previous knowledge of biology that I understood this the first time through. This is not to say I could pass a test on the material, but I had no trouble following along. I suspect this is the same for many of the others that frequent RRS. Smarter than the average bear.
My Artwork
I've taken university courses in chemistry and physics, but I've never taken a biology course at the university level.
How much detail will this go into?
Eventually, at such a level that if read through, the reader would be able to follow the latest published journals in that field.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
A minor hijack, are prions considered to be alive?
No. That is part of lecture #5 and #6 on proteins and proteolysis.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Damn publishers putting out teasers.
My Artwork
Well, as you can see, number #2 is already out. You might want to chew on that considering it has a lot of necessary content:
Molecular Evolution Lecture Section I Part ii) A Primer in Chemistry
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Very cool, my degree was in Physics (with Space Tec) always regretted not doing more biology
One criticism you use the term 'Eukaryotic' cells in rule 8 before defining what they are . You do this later but it confused me as I was trying to work out what I missed
Hi DG,
Thanks for doing this, I look forward to reading it all.
You said "bacteria do not have discrete chromosomes"
But I couldn't see any explanation about what discrete chromosomes are?
Bacterial cells store all of their DNA as one very large molecule. This is because they have relatively small genomes. The E Coli bacteria stores its entire genome, which consists of 600,000 base pairs, as one very large circular molecule with millions of atoms.
However, Eukaryotic cells have genomes far too large to be stored as single molecules, and the packaging of them into discrete chromosomes makes it easier to retrieve genetic material. That is to say, each of the chromosomes is a seperate molecule, which holds a section of the DNA. In humans, we have 46 such chromosomes, or rather, 23 pairs. We must understand that one chromosome is an enormous single molecule. So while bacteria store their DNA as one single molecule, Eukaryotic cells store their DNA as several discrete molecules. The number of chromosomes that Eukaryotic cells have is quite diverse. Some have 4, others have 40. It is usually between 4 to 50.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I see!
Cheers, mate
Part #3 is now out
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Hi again,
In my third reading I've come across something else I don't understand.
In rule 6 you say that Somatic Lines are those cells that make the body of an organism. I took this to mean that all multi-cellular organisms have Somatic Lines.
Then in rule 7 you say that all organisms with a somatic line exchange genetic material through sexual recombination.
But there are many multi-cellular organisms that pass on genetic material asexually, so I guess I must have misunderstood something in rule 6. Could you clarify by any chance?
[edit: changed 'animals' to 'organisms']
Ah, I thought I was missing something. Parthenogenesis and budding. Now I have to find a picture of a hydra plant and that means I have to change the numerical labelling of every picture.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
lol, sorry
Ok... fourth read through!
In the bit you added regarding asexual reproduction:
"(although the large majority of animals reproduce asexually)"
Should be 'sexually' ?
Regarding meosis:
You say that (in diploid organisms) haploid cells are produced by a diploid cell undergoing a process of meosis rather than mitosis. I assume the original diploid cell is of the somatic line? What causes the cell to divide differently, i.e. meosis rather than mitosis? Once the haploid cells have been generated, do they ever split or are more simply generated from other diploid cells, which are themselves generated through mitosis? If the haploid cells DO split, do they split by a process of binary fission?
Sorry if this is dealt with in later lectures, I'm just going over the first two lectures several times at the moment to make sure I understand it reasonably well before moving on.
Is 'Monera' synonymous with 'prokaryota' ?
Thanks
Very nice article DG. It flowed well, was structred well, and most importantly, was easy to understand, for the most part. I would suggest however, not making the next section much longer than this one. I felt this one was just right in length. Just a suggestion. Look forward to more.
I hope they cannot see
the limitless potential
living inside of me
to murder everything.
I hope they cannot see
I am the great destroyer.
The mechanisms of cell division and the generation of germ cells are dealt with in the second last lecture of this part, on the cell cycle. Suffice it to say for know that comprehending it requires sufficient knowledge in everything in the lectures up to the last two.
Yes. But as I said above, we do not class them like that anymore.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism