Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.

[John D. Brey]

How do you explain that some animals who do reproduce sexually do meet the definition of biological immortality you are referring too most notably several species of jellyfish, lobsters? This makes me think that there is no absolute cause-effect link between genetically programmed death and sexual reproduction. The existence of animals who reproduce sexually without genetically programmed death (the definition of biological immortality) falsify your views completely.

. . . Are you under the miss-impression that it's possible that some of the first jellyfish and lobsters are still alive? And fwiw, they're not immortal. They still succumb to aging, be it much slower than the rest of us.

Even if they were immortal, not subject to "programmed-death" in the cell, they still wouldn't falsify my viewpoint since there are oddities and abnormalities and deformities throughout nature. The truth is in the generalities of reality and purpose. Deformities and abnormalities are just part and parcel of the nature of the world.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

You are the one making claims that this is scientific, and yet you have clearly shown that it relies not on verifiable, repeatable prediction and testing, but on individuals interpreting vague symbolic texts to mean specific observations about biology that are not visible to anyone who does not accept YOUR interpretation of the texts.

You don't seem to really understand what biologists mean by cell immortality, don't seem to understand that evolution operates at the level of populations and NOT at the level of an individual, and don't seem to understand that biologists recognize that sexual reproduction is beneficial at the population level because it greatly increases the variability of traits among the population, thus allowing evolution to occur much more rapidly.

. . . Where science and myth meet, Adam represents the entire population of the first life-form.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . Where science and myth meet, Adam represents the entire population of the first life-form.



John

And THAT is clearly YOUR interpretation, not a FACT.

 

[epronovost]

. . . Are you under the miss-impression that it's possible that some of the first jellyfish and lobsters are still alive? And fwiw, they're not immortal. They still succumb to aging, be it much slower than the rest of us.

Of course not. Nobody claimed so either. Biological immortality doesn't mean you cannot die. It means you cannot die of old age. Lobsters don't die of old age. They die of disease, predation or starvation, especially in their late molting. The same thing happens with the jellyfishes in question. They do not die of old age. That's what "biological immortality" means.

Are you equivocating biological immortality to some form of mystical or literal immotality? If so, this is highly fallacious and a serious problem for the validity of your beliefs.

Even if they were immortal, not subject to "programmed-death" in the cell, they still wouldn't falsify my viewpoint since there are oddities and abnormalities and deformities throughout nature. The truth is in the generalities of reality and purpose. Deformities and abnormalities are just part and parcel of the nature of the world.

Then how do you explain those "abnormalities"? Why do lobsters and certain variety of jellyfish not die of old age?

 

[PruePhillip]

Two of our foremost modern evolutionists have failed to explain to their own satisfaction the advantage of this extraordinary procedure [meiosis] for the individual organism. . . When we try to solve the paradox of the cost of meiosis, perhaps instead of worrying about how sex helps the organism we should search for replicating `engineers' of meiosis, intracellular agents which actually cause meiosis to happen . . . Although at present it is just a joke to picture chromosomes being dragged kicking and screaming into the second anaphase by ruthlessly selfish centrioles or other miniature genetic engineers, stranger ideas have become common place in the past. And, after all, orthodox theorizing has so far failed to dent the paradox of the cost of meiosis.

Richard Dawkins.​

Of all evolution's pesky problems, for instance, irreducibly complex structures and organisms, design without a designer, etc., etc., meiotic sex, and meiosis and polar body in particular, present the ultimate Gordian knot. They standout like a sore thumb challenging materialistic scientists to put their money where their mouth is and explain why organisms would pay so high a cost for meiotic sex when the smartest mammals around, with the fastest computers, and the best educations money can buy, can't, for the life of them, even dent the paradox of meiosis and polar body. Lynn Margulis and Dorian Sagan second Richard Dawkins:

At first --- even second-glance, this kind of sex [meiotic] seems a superfluous and unnecessary bother. It has none of the virtues of the free bacterial genetic transfer associated with the world-wide microcosm. In the economic terms that biologists have used to describe it, the `cost' of this kind of sex-producing special sex cells with half the usual number of chromosomes, finding mates, and timing and performing the act of fertilization-seems all out of proportion to any possible advantage.​

Perhaps the scientists should set their biology books aside and look at what the greatest Book ever written has to say about meiosis and polar body as it relates to Messiah?

John

Frankly, no-one has explained the phenomena of GRAVITY. I can see how you can PUSH
something, but to PULL something without any connection (ie rope, chain etc.) is fanciful.
Einstein reckoned there was some invisible hole in space and you kind of fall into it.
Not good enough.
Forget evolution, disbelieve in gravity.

 

[John D. Brey]

Of course not. Nobody claimed so either. Biological immortality doesn't mean you cannot die. It means you cannot die of old age. Lobsters don't die of old age. They die of disease, predation or starvation, especially in their late molting. The same thing happens with the jellyfishes in question. They do not die of old age. That's what "biological immortality" means.

Are you equivocating biological immortality to some form of mystical or literal immotality? If so, this is highly fallacious and a serious problem for the validity of your beliefs.



Then how do you explain those "abnormalities"? Why do lobsters and certain variety of jellyfish not die of old age?

. . . If I'm not mistaken, science states that lobsters do die of old age. They are not technically immortal.

An immortal cell, in a petri dish, protected from the elements and dangers (and given the necessary resources for survival), would never die. That's not the case with a lobster. He will live a very long time. But will die of old age.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Then how do you explain those "abnormalities"? Why do lobsters and certain variety of jellyfish not die of old age?

. . . The Jewish sages had a thousand rules for the scribe so that he would never get even one letter of the Torah text wrong.

Alas, they still did. So rules were made for how to correct the errors. Which is kinda like DNA strands. Which is kinda like all systems, all rules, all realities. There are imperfections that are not intended parts of the whole.

I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities. <s>



John

 

[epronovost]

. . . The Jewish sages had a thousand rules for the scribe so that he would never get even one letter of the Torah text wrong.

Alas, they still did. So rules were made for how to correct the errors. Which is kinda like DNA strands. Which is kinda like all systems, all rules, all realities. There are imperfections that are not intended parts of the whole.

I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities. <s>



John

That's not an explanation. What's the error, how did it occur and why?

 

[John D. Brey]

Frankly, no-one has explained the phenomena of GRAVITY..

. . . That's like saying no one has explained gravy. Einstein did discover, and explain, to some degree, the force we now call gravity.

If you bring three blind men to a bowl of gravy, one will say it's an elephant's entrails. Another will say it's the feces of higher beings (which is why it smells so good). And the last will say, alas, it's heavy water left over from Alamogordo.

Which is all just a fancy way to say water seeks its own weight and level. Which explains the particulars of this less than weighty response.



John

 

[epronovost]

. . . If I'm not mistaken, science states that lobsters do die of old age. They are not technically immortal.

An immortal cell, in a petri dish, protected from the elements and dangers (and given the necessary resources for survival), would never die. That's not the case with a lobster. He will live a very long time. But will die of old age.

No, you are completely wrong. They do not die of old age. They die of disease or exhaustion at around the age of 30 years old due to the stress of molting. They simply no longer have the capacity to feed fast enough and in a continuous manner to survive. They don't die of old age, it's simply impossible for them to acquire and process the necessary resources for survival. Dying of exhaustion or disease isn't dying of old age. I'm sorry if it offends you sensibility.

 

[John D. Brey]

That's not an explanation. What's the error, how did it occur and why?

. . . Copying (or writing) errors. Birds do it. Bees do it. DNA does it. And thee and me do it to [sic].



John

 

[John D. Brey]

No, you are completely wrong. They do not die of old age. They die of disease or exhaustion at around the age of 30 years old due to the stress of molting. They simply no longer have the capacity to feed fast enough and in a continuous manner to survive. They don't die of old age, it's simply impossible for them to acquire and process the necessary resources for survival. Dying of exhaustion or disease isn't dying of old age. I'm sorry if it offends you sensibility.

. . . Why don't they get exhausted earlier on? An immortal cell, living in a petri dish, is no more exhausted at a million years old, than he is at one day old. Go figure?

Research suggests that lobsters may not slow down, weaken, or lose fertility with age, and that older lobsters may be more fertile than younger lobsters. This does not however make them immortal in the traditional sense, as they are significantly more likely to die at a shell moult the older they get (as detailed below).

Their longevity may be due to telomerase, an enzyme that repairs long repetitive sections of DNA sequences at the ends of chromosomes, referred to as telomeres. Telomerase is expressed by most vertebrates during embryonic stages but is generally absent from adult stages of life. . . Contrary to popular belief, lobsters are not immortal.

Biological immortality - Wikipedia.​

John

 

[PruePhillip]

. . . That's like saying no one has explained gravy. Einstein did discover, and explain, to some degree, the force we now call gravity.

If you bring three blind men to a bowl of gravy, one will say it's an elephant's entrails. Another will say it's the feces of higher beings (which is why it smells so good). And the last will say, alas, it's heavy water left over from Alamogordo.

Which is all just a fancy way to say water seeks its own weight and level. Which explains the particulars of this less than weighty response.



John

Quote - "...explain, to some degree, the force we now call gravity."
That's like saying "Explain to some degree evolution."

Neither can be "proven", it's a matter of where consensus lies. Frankly
I am not sure there is gravity. Newton said the force that felled the
apple held the moon in the sky. That's conceptually absurd.
God keeps our feet on the ground - not gravity.

 

[epronovost]

. . . Why don't they get exhausted earlier on? An immortal cell, living in a petri dish, is no more exhausted at a million years old, than he is at one day old. Go figure?John

Yes, because you decided to compare a single cell organism living in absolutely perfect conditions compared to a complex animal who doesn't live in perfect condition. With time, in non absolutely perfect condition, all organism degrade to a certain point. They suffer from disease, injuries, stress of all sorts, etc. That's why no biologically immortal creatures has been alive continuously for millions of years.

 

[epronovost]

. . . Copying (or writing) errors. Birds do it. Bees do it. DNA does it. And thee and me do it to [sic].



John

Saying "it's an error" isn't an explanation. I asked you for a why and a how. You claim to know the answer, then prove it. Provide us with a clear why and how it happens that some animals who reproduce sexually are biologically immortal.

 

[Bear Wild]

The conclusion from the last link says (in part):

One of the main take-home messages of this review is that many, if not most features of meiosis are still awaiting an evolutionary explanation. Nonetheless, the recent advances in all detailed aspects of meiosis now offer the chance to investigate these questions in a far more comprehensive manner. This will require continued dialogue between cell, molecular and evolutionary biologists (as advocated e.g. in [195]), and perhaps also the realization that similarities between features may in fact have different evolutionary explanations (e.g. different kinds of hotspots).One of the most salient themes in most meiosis mysteries is the impact of genetic conflicts and SGEs. As for the evolution of genome size and structure, their impact is probably central [196], but in many cases they remain hypothetical and difficult to demonstrate and study directly.​

The bottom line in any good discussion of meiosis is that science has no viable theory for why it exists. There are ideas and discussions, of course, but they haven't yet provided even a basic, general, theory of the purpose of meiosis even though it's staring them right in the face.



John

So you pick out the honest appraisal of the current status of the subject in 2016 and ignore all of the evidence presented above it. The article presents the different aspects of what needs to be explained in understanding the evolution of meiosis and what we do know starting with the reduction of ploidy, homolog pairing, explaining the two step process, variations of meiosis including inverted meiosis (in which a recent study in 2019 "Inverted meiosis and the evolution of sex by loss of complementation" Error - Cookies Turned Off ), the timing of meiosis and the epigenetic aspects, variations in crossover including interference and hotspots. In each of these topics there is immerging evidence giving insight to how meiosis evolved.
This means you would have to ignore what has been learned to settle on the incorrect statement that there is no viable theory. You must not be familiar with science and that is understandable because this is a complex subject and there is the tempting incorrect mistake of "just because we do not have the complete picture yet the theory and evidence does not exist". The theory is clearly there and supported by the growing evidence and it is there right in front of anyone's face who wishes to take the time to learn.

Explanations for the why are further explored in another article from the same publication and same year. This gives new insights to what meiosis is doing. Very interesting re-evaluation of what advantages meiosis has.

"The evolution of meiotic sex and its alternatives"
Ghader Mirzaghaderi and Elvira Hörandl
at
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1221

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, because you decided to compare a single cell organism living in absolutely perfect conditions compared to a complex animal who doesn't live in perfect condition. With time, in non absolutely perfect condition, all organism degrade to a certain point. They suffer from disease, injuries, stress of all sorts, etc. That's why no biologically immortal creatures has been alive continuously for millions of years.

The lobster is not immortal. . . And neither am I. I have everlasting life. Which trumps immortality by infinity.

I'm sorry if this offends your sensibilities. <s>



John

 

[John D. Brey]

So you pick out the honest appraisal of the current status of the subject in 2016 and ignore all of the evidence presented above it. The article presents the different aspects of what needs to be explained in understanding the evolution of meiosis and what we do know starting with the reduction of ploidy, homolog pairing, explaining the two step process, variations of meiosis including inverted meiosis (in which a recent study in 2019 "Inverted meiosis and the evolution of sex by loss of complementation" Error - Cookies Turned Off ), the timing of meiosis and the epigenetic aspects, variations in crossover including interference and hotspots. In each of these topics there is immerging evidence giving insight to how meiosis evolved.
This means you would have to ignore what has been learned to settle on the incorrect statement that there is no viable theory. You must not be familiar with science and that is understandable because this is a complex subject and there is the tempting incorrect mistake of "just because we do not have the complete picture yet the theory and evidence does not exist". The theory is clearly there and supported by the growing evidence and it is there right in front of anyone's face who wishes to take the time to learn.

Explanations for the why are further explored in another article from the same publication and same year. This gives new insights to what meiosis is doing. Very interesting re-evaluation of what advantages meiosis has.

"The evolution of meiotic sex and its alternatives"
Ghader Mirzaghaderi and Elvira Hörandl
at
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1221

. . . Feel free to generalize for us all what you think the thinkers in the article claim is the purpose and design of meiosis. I've read more than you care to know about it and am more than willing to generalize concepts and principles that support my hypothesis.



John

 

[Bear Wild]

. . . You appear to know as little about science as you do the Bible. That creates a real dilemma for anything I should like to say about science, the Bible, or the relationship between the two.

I suggest you read Karl Popper's, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Or any of a dozen of his other works on the history and development of the scientific method.

The first scientists were biblical mystics. Isaac Newton, the father of modern science, said he discovered the theory of gravity studying Solomon's temple. Newton wrote more pages of biblical theology, over a million words in his own handwriting, then he wrote science. At the end of his magnum opus, the Principia, he said that nothing in it, rose to the scientific brilliance of God's great science book, the Bible.

Copernicus said he came to the theory of heliocentrism from the ancient myths of the sun god who, as god, must be central to all other bodies.

Popper literally said that myth is the original form of science, and that you must start with myth, as the theory generation mechanism, that leads to experimentation.

The scientist and friend of Albert Einstein, John Wheeler, asked what quantum physics teaches us that wasn't already hypothesized by the Christian mystic Bishop Berkeley.

The Oxford philosopher Bryan Magee said that Kant's entire philosophy, which Einstein said was the very foundation of his own (Einstein's) science, appears to have been little more than an attempt by Kant to say what the world would have to be like for what his Christianity told him it was:

Now it is as if he then said to himself: "How can these things be so? What can be the nature of time and space and material objects if they obtain only in the world of human beings? Could it be, given that they characterize only the world of experience and nothing else, that they are characteristics, or preconditions, of experience, and nothing else?" In other words, Kant's philosophy is a fully worked out analysis of what needs to be the case for what he believed [his Christian teaching] already to be true.

Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher, p.249,250.​

Poppers philosophy is falsifiable and has been falsified. It is fundamentally incorrect.

Yes western science developed within the religious schools of of the time, but they were the only centers of learning at the time.
John

 

[John D. Brey]

Quote - "...explain, to some degree, the force we now call gravity."
That's like saying "Explain to some degree evolution."

Neither can be "proven", it's a matter of where consensus lies. Frankly
I am not sure there is gravity. Newton said the force that felled the
apple held the moon in the sky. That's conceptually absurd.
God keeps our feet on the ground - not gravity.

John