Energy-dependent purifying selection / autophagy (4)
Energy-dependent purifying selection / autophagy (3)
My question: What is an abiotic environment?
“abiotic factors found in aquatic systems may be things like water depth, pH, sunlight, turbidity (amount of water cloudiness), salinity (salt concentration), available nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous, etc.), and dissolved oxygen (amount of oxygen dissolved in the water). Abiotic variables found in terrestrial ecosystems can include things like rain, wind, temperature, altitude, soil, pollution, nutrients, pH, types of soil, and sunlight.“
My question: When did Schrodinger’s negative entropy of sunlight become an abiotic factor/variable?
See: What is Life? (1944)
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)
Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961) is best known as a co-recipient of the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physics, which is the same year that Thomas Hunt Morgan won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discoveries elucidating the role that the chromosome plays in heredity. Simply put, between two 1933 Nobel Laureates from different disciplines, we learned why the concept of the environment must include everything from energy-dependent changes in angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera.
See for instance:
See also, the alternative: One crank dies, another rises to take his place
Ecological adaptation occurs via the epigenetic effects of nutrients on alternative splicings of pre-mRNA which result in amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types of all individuals of all species. The control of the differences in cell types occurs via the metabolism of the nutrients to chemical signals that control the physiology of reproduction.
These facts do not refute evolution; they simply refute the ridiculous theory of mutation-initiated natural selection that most people here were taught to believe is the theory of evolution.
That theory is far too ridiculous to be anything but a joke in the context of biological-based increasing organismal complexity. But here, we have lots of jokers, don’t we? The proof of ecological variation that appears to refute the theory of evolution, which actually refutes itself, is that ecological adaptations occur too fast for mutations to compete with them as a source of anything but diseases and disorders.
The unprovoked attack on my accurate representation of biologically-based cause and effect can only be compared to the attacks of PZ Myers on the accurate representations of others. For comparison, Roger Penrose may become best known for leading the way with his support of Schrodinger’s claims in this concise statement:
“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?”
I hope that PZ Myers will become well known for ignoring all the claims that have ever been made by serious scientists and for touting only the claims made by other pseudoscientists and their idiot minions.