Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Thermodynamics and Entropy

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:54 am

Is this the first female Brazilian with whom you've had the fortunate opportunity of encountering/interacting?
She's not so unique/exclusive in this general regard: Brazilian women have a tendency to be immensely immature/cursory/liberal and louco.
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:14 am

Quote :
Lyssa wrote:
Didn't Nietzsche, Foucault or Baudrillard or Bernays argue the sophisticated kind of slavery is letting the slaves think they are free?
To think that subtle coercions are not tending towards [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] exposes the success of that sophistication.

Even forgetting that, lets assume free-will trumps all memetic warfare,,,don't DNA replications depend on nourishment and can't we see the perversion that HAS already occured in food-crop manipulation? As if, even assuming the copying mechanism works to the dot and there are no increasing structural damages, the Quality of information loss can be prevented when the food chain is being tampered with? We are what we eat.
And new infections and diseases and new vaccines/meds. entering the body dont make a difference to info. entropy?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Richard Lynn is a psychologist.
I am more inclined to indulge the genetic theories of molecular biologists.



Quote :
"Muller was one of the first scientists to take an interest in deleterious mutations. His principal interest was the mutation load in human populations, a topic that has received renewed interest. CROW (1997) has argued that we need to be aware that modern medicine and improved sanitation may have important impacts on our genetic legacy. As natural selection is relaxed, some populations will accumulate deleterious mutations, leading to a greater dependence on medicine, ultimately putting our population at risk if the ability to sustain high-level health care and sanitation is reduced. We know that humans have a high deleterious mutation rate, but the consequences of relaxing natural selection in contemporary populations will depend on the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations, and we currently lack information from an appropriate model. By assuming Mukai’s estimate of the average selective effect of deleterious mutations in Drosophila, CROW (1997) and LYNCH et al. (1999b) have argued that human populations may suffer significant genetic degradation within a short period of time. However, if there is variation among selective effects, as seems likely given the contrasting MA and molecular estimates of U in E. coli, then the average selective effect is a gross overestimate, as is our likely genetic degradation. How humans and related species evade the effects of mutation load on an evolutionary time scale is also an open question."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


-

Quote :
"2007: Leading geneticist [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] says human evolution is over

Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert.

Fathers over the age of 35 are more likely to pass on mutations, according to Professor Steve Jones, of University College London.

Speaking today at a UCL lecture entitled “Human evolution is over” Professor Jones will argue that there were three components to evolution – natural selection, mutation and random change. “Quite unexpectedly, we have dropped the human mutation rate because of a change in reproductive patterns,” Professor Jones told The Times.

“Human social change often changes our genetic future,” he said, citing marriage patterns and contraception as examples. Although chemicals and radioactive pollution could alter genetics, one of the most important mutation triggers is advanced age in men.

This is because cell divisions in males increase with age. “Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error,” he said. “For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on – each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.

“For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation.”

Professor Jones added: “In the old days, you would find one powerful man having hundreds of children.” He cites the fecund Moulay Ismail of Morocco, who died in the 18th century, and is reputed to have fathered 888 children. To achieve this feat, Ismail is thought to have copulated with an average of about 1.2 women a day over 60 years."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


-

Quote :
"British scientific researchers demonstrated that genetically modified DNA from crops can find its way into human gut bacteria, raising possible health concerns. This is because antibiotic-resistant marker genes are inserted with GM material, which could cause a person to be resistant to antibiotic medicines.

The study was conducted at Newcastle University on seven human volunteers who, in the past, had their lower intestine removed and now use colostomy bags. After eating a burger containing GM soy, researchers compared their stools with 12 people with normal stomachs. They found "to their surprise" that "a relatively large proportion of genetically modified DNA survived the passage through the small bowel." None was found in people who had complete stomachs. To see if GM DNA might be be transferred via bacteria to the intestine, they also took bacteria from stools in the colostomy bags and cultivated them. In three of the seven samples they found bacteria had taken up the herbicide-resistant gene from the GM food at a very low level.

Michael Antonio, a senior lecturer in molecular genetics at King`s College Medical School, London, said that the work was significant because the researchers demonstrated that you can get GM plant DNA in the gut bacteria, which was previously considered to be not possible. Antonio said the research suggests that antibiotic marker genes could spread around the stomach and compromise antibiotic resistance. If this were to happen, a person could be immune to beneficial antiobiotic medicines.

Marker genes are inserted into GM plants to allow identification of GM cells or tissue during development. The House of Lords has called for them to be phased out as swiftly as possible. The research was conducted at the request of the UK's Food Standards Agency, which released a statement saying the research, "concluded that the likelihood of functioning DNA being taken up by bacteria in the human or animal gut is extremely low."

Source: The Guardian
(August 2002)"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


-

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

-

Reality case-study:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

-

I believe I've already quoted this; the idea that two areas of science - being a professor of Psychology "cannot" have credibility to inform about realistic trends as an experise of molecular biology or biomed. and that kind of separation of sciences is an example of one more Dysgenic trend:

Satyr wrote:
"Idiot Savants.

A byproduct of increasing specialization.
An individual becomes an "expert" in one field, knowing all there is to know about it (a collector of information he accepts from the "appropriate" sources and regurgitates as a matter of fact); his entire life is taken over, with brief breaks to replenish his energies and to recreate, with keeping up to date with the information he requires to maintain his expert status.

As a consequence his performances in all other areas and his knowledge of any other field of knowledge, suffer.
He increasingly becomes dependent upon other experts in other fields, in this way also reinforcing his own status as a specialist they too depend upon.
This increasing interdependence results in the opposite of freedom and uniqueness. His inadequacies in all areas except the area of his expertise makes him more dependent on imitating and simply accepting popular trends or fashions coming from other "specialists"...
The source leads to a uniformity because it is itself trained by an institution wanting to produce a particular mindset and to reinforce the value of a particular behavior and a particular way of thinking. The institution, after all, wishes to preserve its own relevance and so it both promotes an attitude which does so and it also glorifies those who adhere to its principles.

As a side-effect these individuals become less and less able to perceive any grand picture or to challenge the status quo. Their entire intellectual capacity is taken over with the finer details of their craft, submerging themselves in the particular, loosing view of the universal."



Quote :
I've got the world wide web at my fingertips and a background in biomedical engineering/microbiology research.


Proof of Credentials? Papers? Dissertations? Theses?

Lets start with that paper on 'Scientific Objectivity', how about?

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:09 pm

The phony claim made was that all states, all combinations are equally probable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


There are several ways how to approach this - One would be to acknowledge that the particles are not individualized. There are green ones and purple ones but each of the green ones are essentially the same and are indistinguishable which means that they are to be treated as indistinguishable when trying to calculate the probabilities of all combinations, which in turn renders combinations which are close to evenly mixed much more probable than combinations where the colors are clustered in respective spheres.

Another approach, more visual, is to treat the process of particles moving from one sphere to the other as a step by step process (the calculated probabilities are the same).

Let's try this more visual approach of why not all states are equally probable.

Two cases.

Case 1 - The spheres are evenly mixed, well shuffled, and there are about as many purple ones as there are green ones in each of the respective spheres.
Now, one particle is moving from the left sphere to the right sphere. There is about an even chance that the particle which is moving is either purple or green because there is an equal amount of them in the left sphere.

Case 2 - The green and purple particles are very well separated from each other in their respective spheres. The left sphere is full of mainly green particles and the right one is filled mainly with purple ones.
Now a particle from the left sphere is moving to the right sphere and with an overwhelming probability it's going to be a green particle. And vice versa, if a particle is moving from the right sphere to the left one it's most likely going to be a purple one.

It should be obvious that Case 2 is unstable and is moving towards becoming Case 1 which is a comparably stable state. Case 1 may have been Case 2 in the past, at some point but the opposite move, from 1 to 2, is exceedingly unlikely when the number of particles is big enough.

Stability vs Instability

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

for eyesinthedark
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:00 pm

My claim that all states are equally probable refers to the state of entropic equilibrium alone.
Back to top Go down
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:07 pm

phono wrote:
My claim that all states are equally probable refers to the state of entropic equilibrium alone.

Suit yourself.
It shows that order and disorder are not equally probable.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:07 pm

To take the messing up a room example -
Messing up a room randomly and expecting to find all the socks on one pile and the shirts on another, with the cups in the cupboard being just as probable as any other of the countless random distributions is false.

One approach how to qualitatively explain the difference is to look at the arranging of items in a sequential order, like a process.

We put the first item randomly somewhere in the room. It happens to be a pair of socks. It can be placed randomly within the room. The next item happens to be a shirt. To arrange the shirt distinctively from the socks we have to put it anywhere in the room except too close to the first pair of socks. So already in this second step there is a small probability that the arranging in distinctive piles pattern will be broken. The more items are to be arranged this way, the higher the probability that the pattern will be broken.

This restrictiveness is order.
Order is when not anything goes.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:15 pm

Anfang wrote:
phono wrote:
My claim that all states are equally probable refers to the state of entropic equilibrium alone.

Suit yourself.
It shows that order and disorder are not equally probable.

I've made no such claim.
I said that [in a state of entropic equilibrium] any one specific orderly state is equally probable to any one specific disorderly state.
The universe has nothing against order itself. It is just that there are more ways in which something can be disorderly, and thus disorder is more probable.
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Mon Aug 25, 2014 6:32 pm

Disorder is produced by (inter)activity.
Interactivity expands in possibility (space) expanding complexity and randomness.

More patterns, more complex interactions.
No patterns, no order in the interaction - unpredictable, imperceptible; darkness is how the human brain interprets this absence.

Randomness being energies with no stable state - no pattern that would produce order long enough, in relation to man, to become perceived by man.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:05 pm

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Fri Sep 05, 2014 12:57 pm

Just putting stuff here so I can read it later.

http://www.csupomona.edu/~hsleff/rmet5.pdf
Back to top Go down
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:15 pm

Lyssa wrote:


Quote :
Lyssa wrote:
Didn't Nietzsche, Foucault or Baudrillard or Bernays argue the sophisticated kind of slavery is letting the slaves think they are free?
To think that subtle coercions are not tending towards [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] exposes the success of that sophistication.

Even forgetting that, lets assume free-will trumps all memetic warfare,,,don't DNA replications depend on nourishment and can't we see the perversion that HAS already occured in food-crop manipulation? As if, even assuming the copying mechanism works to the dot and there are no increasing structural damages, the Quality of information loss can be prevented when the food chain is being tampered with? We are what we eat.
And new infections and diseases and new vaccines/meds. entering the body dont make a difference to info. entropy?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Richard Lynn is a psychologist.
I am more inclined to indulge the genetic theories of molecular biologists.




Quote :
"Muller was one of the first scientists to take an interest in deleterious mutations. His principal interest was the mutation load in human populations, a topic that has received renewed interest. CROW (1997) has argued that we need to be aware that modern medicine and improved sanitation may have important impacts on our genetic legacy. As natural selection is relaxed, some populations will accumulate deleterious mutations, leading to a greater dependence on medicine, ultimately putting our population at risk if the ability to sustain high-level health care and sanitation is reduced. We know that humans have a high deleterious mutation rate, but the consequences of relaxing natural selection in contemporary populations will depend on the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations, and we currently lack information from an appropriate model. By assuming Mukai’s estimate of the average selective effect of deleterious mutations in Drosophila, CROW (1997) and LYNCH et al. (1999b) have argued that human populations may suffer significant genetic degradation within a short period of time. However, if there is variation among selective effects, as seems likely given the contrasting MA and molecular estimates of U in E. coli, then the average selective effect is a gross overestimate, as is our likely genetic degradation. How humans and related species evade the effects of mutation load on an evolutionary time scale is also an open question."


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



- - -


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


-

Quote :
"Several categories of chronic inflammatory disorder have become much more prevalent in developed countries. The ‘hygiene hypothesis’, based originally on epidemiology, but now supported by experimental work in vivo and in vitro, and by clinical trials, suggests that some of this increased prevalence is due to a malfunction of the immune system caused by the altered patterns of exposure to microorganisms that result from economic development and changing lifestyles.

Although clearly applicable to many types of chronic inflammatory disorder, it is in the field of allergic disorders that these ideas have the longest history. In 1873 Charles Harrison Blackley noted that hay fever was associated with exposure to pollen, but also stated that “farmers rarely experience the condition”. Indeed hay fever began to be regarded as a mark of wealth, education and sophistication. In the 1880s Morell Mackenzie, a British physician, went so far as to state “As, there- fore, summer sneezing goes hand-in-hand with culture, we may, perhaps infer that the higher we rise in the intellectual scale, the more is the tendency developed.” He added the entertaining remark that “...the tendency to sneeze at the sight of a rose will become a test, surer than the letter h, for the separation of the elect from the common herd.”

During the 1980s and 1990s both Strachan and Matricardi and colleagues observed that having many siblings, especially older ones, correlated with a dimin- ished risk of hay fever. These findings were considered consistent with a protective influence of postnatal infection, which might be lost in the presence of modern hygiene. So the ‘hygiene hypothesis’ was born. Subsequent studies rediscovered the protective effect of the farming environment, particularly exposure to cowsheds. However this did not provide an immediately obvious microbiological com- mon factor. What, if any, is the link between exposure to older siblings and exposure to cowsheds? You do not pick up the common infections of childhood from cows!

The situation was complicated further by epidemiological or experimental stud- ies showing protection from allergies attributable to exposure to endotoxin helminths, lactobacilli, mycobacteria, gut microbiota, and organisms transmitted by the faeco-oral route. These observations consolidated the view that microorganisms or their components were a crucial factor, but failed initially to provide a unifying hypothesis. Thus the concept was initially vague and lacked mechanistic explanations, so it is not surprising that in the 20 years since Strachan’s original study a multitude of different, sometimes overlapping, often mutually exclusive versions of this hypothesis have been considered. From time to time this has led to the ‘disproving’ of hypotheses or mechanisms that few had intended to propose in the first place.

Recently we have approached the issue from a different angle; Darwinian Medi- cine. It was Theodosius Dobzhansky who first made the now famous statement that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. This type of thinking is rapidly enhancing our understanding of all branches of medicine and is particularly relevant to the hygiene hypothesis.


Environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA)

The term EEA was first used in 1969 by John Bowlby, who was concerned that those aspects of human behaviour that are genetically determined (such as instincts) might be adapted to the hunter-gatherer existence rather than to modern city life [19]. The basis for this was the view that since the start of agriculture and pastoralism about 10,000 years ago, human adaptation to new environments has been cultural and technological rather than genetic. Interestingly human genetic diversity appears to be increasing more rapidly than ever before, which might seem discordant with this view [20]. However this increase is due to the population explosion, rather than to adaptation to specific environments. For example, we have not adapted genetically to living in cold places: we have learnt to make fur coats. Humans easily detect problems within the physical environment and invent appropriate technological adaptations. We deal with excessive heat, cold, light, dark, water, drought etc., by technology. However there are two physiological systems where we lack conscious awareness that there is something wrong, so we fail to seek technological solu- tions. For example, only since Bowlby have we been wondering if the brain is fully adapted to the modern social environment. But the immune system, like the brain, is a learning system that requires the inputs that it has evolved to receive. Only since the hygiene hypothesis appeared have we been wondering if the immune systems of people living in clean modern cities are receiving the appropriate inputs.

The human EEA is the hunter-gatherer environment. Does this allow us to define the microbial inputs that our immune systems have evolved to ‘expect’? The hunter-gatherer lifestyle was in fact many different lifestyles, in many differ- ent environments, so this is a complex issue. Nevertheless one can identify types of organism that will inevitably have been abundant in all manifestations of the human EEA.

First, there were commensal organisms on the skin and in the gut microbiota. The latter constitute an ‘organ’ with the metabolic activity and importance at least equal to that of the liver, and profound effects on the immune system that are outlined later [24]. Modern lifestyles and antibiotic use are changing the intestinal microbiota (see the chapters by Fergus Shanahan and by David Elliott and Joel Weinstock in this volume). It is also possible that commensal skin organisms had important immunoregulatory roles, and these are discussed by David Whitlock and Martin Feelisch.

Secondly, there were harmless environmental organisms present throughout hominid (and indeed mammalian) evolution. These can be considered as ‘pseudo- commensals’ (i.e., always present, and consumed every single day, but not actually replicating in the host) associated with rotting vegetation, soil and untreated water. The latter include lactobacilli, and many actinomycetes including saprophytic myco-bacteria.

Thirdly there were helminth.. Helminth infections were universal through- out hominid evolution. Only recently, and only in developed countries, has infesta- tion with these organisms become rare.

These issues, and the history of man’s encounters with microorganisms, are con- sidered in the chapter by George J. Armelagos. Interestingly, these groups of organ- isms (commensal microbiota, environmental saprophytes and helminths) that man and his ancestors encountered continuously and in large quantities for millions of years, are among those that are changed or depleted from the modern environment and have been shown to be relevant to immunoregulation,  Our need for these organisms is an example of ‘evolved dependence’.


Evolved dependence

This concept refers to situations where an organism has become adapted to the presence of a partner, and can no longer perform well without that partner [26]. It was originally used to describe endosymbioses. A classical example was seen in the laboratory environment when an amoeba (Amoeba discoides) became infected with a bacterium. Initially this infection severely compromised the growth of the amoebae. However, after 5 years the relationship between the two species had changed and neither organism could survive without the other. This indicates genet- ic changes leading to dependence. For instance, an enzyme that is encoded in the genome of both species might be dropped from the genome of one of them. Access to that gene is now ‘entrusted’ to the other species. This idea is at first somewhat alien to immunologists, but it is in fact rather commonplace. For instance, most mammals can synthesise vitamin C, but large primates and guinea-pigs have lost the relevant pathways. In effect man and guinea-pig are now in a state of evolved dependence on fruit and vegetables. Of course the same is true for many other genes involved in the synthesis of vitamins and other essential nutrients that we have to consume after other organisms have created them for us.

Evolved dependence of the immune system on commensal organisms

The immune systems of germ-free animals fail to develop correctly, and are func- tionally distorted. There is lack of cellularity, and lack of effective immunoregula- tion. In 2005 Sarkis Mazmanian and colleagues showed that a single polysaccharide from an intestinal commensal, Bacteroides fragilis, could partly correct these devel- opmental abnormalities. More recently they have shown, using three different models of intestinal inflammation that the same polysaccharide, given by mouth, can turn on crucial immunoregulatory pathways. In the discussion of the latter paper they state:

We propose that the mammalian genome does not encode for all functions required for immunological development but rather that mammals depend on critical interactions with their microbiome (the collective genomes of the micro- biota) for health.

To put it even more simply, some genes needed for the development and regulation of the mammalian immune system might have been ‘entrusted’ to microorganisms; a clear example of ‘evolved dependence’. It is obvious that these organisms have to be those with which mammals have co-evolved for a very long time, and that were always present. They cannot be organisms that merely cause sporadic infections. The latter can modify the human genome by elimination of susceptible genotypes, but they cannot play the role of supplying genes and functions that we need." [Graham Rook, The Hygiene Hypothesis and Darwinian Medicine]



Quote :
"Changed exposure to microorganisms that provoke chronic inflammatory disorders

Is it possible that in the rich countries we are seeing consequences of increased exposure to organisms that provoke chronic inflammatory disorders? Some authors believe that chronic infections have a causal role in many chronic inflammatory disorders, either because they persist as cryptic infections, or because they disturb immune function. Likely mechanisms for the latter include molecular mimicry, where a microbial structure evokes a response that is cross-reactive with a human component. Other organisms might exert adjuvant effects that overcome down- regulation of responses to self, or cause more subtle disturbances of inflammation, immunoregulation or innate immunity.

Changing lifestyles might be resulting in changes in the frequency of exposure to these organisms, or changes in the timing of exposure. The latter is an interesting concept. Modern living could cause delayed infection, so that the child encounters the virus after levels of antibody derived from the mother have fallen to an ineffective level, or when the immune system has achieved a different stage of development. This might cause significant changes in pathology.  

Children are exposed to many types of infection. However when considered in the light of the evolutionary considerations outlined above, it becomes clear that the childhood virus infections are extraordinarily unlikely to be important in this context, and this prediction has been substantiated in several studies.

In short, the history of our interactions with these organisms establishes the fact that they were not part of the human EEA, and in any case they were not appropri- ate for the setting up of a relationship such as evolved dependence.

Thus as might be expected, the common infections of childhood do not, with notable exceptions considered in a later section, protect from allergic disorders. Children in daycare centres do not have an increased risk of atopy if they wash more often and reduce their infection rate.

There are several reports that protection from allergies is associated with evidence of infection with organisms that are transmitted by the faeco-oral route


Conclusion:

Man’s interactions with the organisms described above extends back into the Palaeolithic, with the exception of BCG, though other mycobacteria were always abundant. We designate these organisms ‘old friends’, to emphasise the duration of these interactions, and their evolutionary significance. Importantly, the ‘old friends’ all satisfy the following criteria:

Abundant during mammalian evolution (i.e., going back much further than the ~500 generations since the start of agriculture)

Virtually absent, and increasingly so over the last century, from the modern environment

Proven to have therapeutic effects in animal models of chronic inflammatory disorders

Some proven to have therapeutic effects in human clinical trials" [ib.]



Quote :
"Adjuvant effects

One important aspect of microbe-dependent immunoregulation is adjuvanticity leading to enhanced responses rather than downregulation. Clearly these two facets of immunoregulation are closely related. The interplay between the two is particularly clear in relation to cancer. Microbial components such as endotoxin (LPS) are powerful adjuvants that can enhance immune responses. Workers in the cotton industry in Shanghai are heavily exposed to LPS, and they are reported to have reduced incidences of cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, breast and lung. Similarly dairy workers, who are exposed to a multitude of microbial components including LPS, are also protected from lung cancer. In the 1970s a number of authors claimed that BCG vaccination protected against leukaemia and other haematological tumours, though the validity of the findings remains uncertain. More recently it has been suggested that BCG or smallpox vaccine can pro- tect against melanoma.

The ‘old friends’ hypothesis’ suggests that the gut microbiota, and environmental saprophytes, needed to be tolerated by the immune system because they were harmless and always present in large numbers in food and water (i.e., ‘pseudocommensals’). Similarly the helminthic parasites needed to be tolerated because, although not always harmless, once they were established in the host any effort by the immune system to eliminate them was likely to cause tissue damage. For instance, a futile effort to destroy Brugia malayi microfilariae results in lymphatic blockage and elephantiasis. So over millions of years a state of Evolved Dependence might have developed, where the induction of appropri- ate levels of immunoregulation by the ‘old friends’ has become a physiological necessity. In other words, some genes involved in setting up appropriate levels of immunoregulation are located in microbial rather than mammalian genomes. Reduced exposure to the old friends should therefore lead to a failure to terminate inflammatory episodes, and to a range of chronic inflammatory disorders. We know that a generalised dysfunction of immunoregulatory mechanisms can lead to simultaneous increases in diverse types of pathology, because genetic defects of Foxp3, a transcription factor that plays a crucial role in the development and function of regulatory T cells (Treg), leads to a syndrome known as X-linked autoimmunity-allergic dysregulation syndrome (XLAAD) that includes aspects of allergy, autoimmunity and enteropathy. In support of this concept immu- noregulation has been shown to be faulty in individuals suffering from allergic disorders and some autoimmune diseases and probably in IBD too. Further evidence for and against the view that the increases in these and other chronic inflammatory diseases that are occurring in the rich devel- oped countries are indeed due to failing immunoregulation.

The cellular and molecular mechanisms that enable microorganisms and their components to drive immunoregulation are discussed in detail by Rick M. Maizels and Ursula Wiedermann. The host–parasite relationship evolved so that rather than provoking needless, damaging aggressive immune responses, these organisms cause a pattern of maturation of dendritic cells (DC) such that these drive Treg rather than Th1 or Th2 effector cells. This in turn leads to two mechanisms that help to control inappropriate inflammation.

The validity of this hypothetical model is further supported by clinical trials and experimental models in which exposure to microorganisms that were ubiqui- tous during mammalian evolutionary history, but are currently ‘missing’ from the environment in rich countries (or from animal units with Specific Pathogen-Free facilities) will treat allergy, autoimmunity or intestinal inflammation.

Pathologies that are increasing, and that might be partly attributable to defective immuno-regulation. Human evolution and physiology were shaped by the hunter-gatherer way of life, which is regarded as the human ‘Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness’. Despite increas- ing human genetic diversity, most human adaptation to novel environments in the last few millennia has been cultural and technological rather than genetic, so a gene-environment misfit may be occurring, particularly in the immune system, which is not linked to a conscious sensory modality that can warn us of problems.

We conclude therefore that a variety of organisms that are harmless (commensals, environmental saprophytes) or must be tolerated (helminths), and that were part of the environment throughout mammalian evolution (the old friends), evolved roles in the priming of immunoregulation. We have summarised the evidence that diminished exposure to these old friends is contributing to the increases in disorders of immunoregulation that we see in rich developed countries. Finally, Margo C. Honeyman and Leonard C. Harrison explain some of the other changes in the modern lifestyle that could be contributing to the rise in chronic inflammatory disorders. It is not the purpose of this book to suggest that all of the increase in chronic inflammatory disorders is due to diminished contact with the old friends."

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Thu Nov 27, 2014 7:34 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Anfang wrote:
phono wrote:
Information entropy also can't be compared to DNA information very adequately. As you know, in information entropy, copy/transfer always results in data loss. The post peculiar thing about the DNA molecule is its ability to create a perfect copy of itself, which it does in most cases without any data loss whatsoever.

We take a population of exclusively healthy people who are not clones.
They are the most healthy individuals of distinctive tribes/races,
there are no mutagens and all DNA strands are always copied perfectly,
and we mix them with each other.

The rules are that there are no premature deaths,
all do form couples during their lifetimes and get two children but no more, before they both pass away at some point.

So we have a steady population which is mixing their perfect DNA via exchanging chromosomes.
The result will be that the average health of this population will decline until it reaches its maximum point of entropy. In other words, until it reaches the point where all chromosomes are well shuffled throughout the population.


See -
Starting individual A is well optimized. Its lungs, heart, bodily features and so forth are well optimized. All of its organs are well proportioned in relation to each other and so forth.

Starting individual B is also well optimized. Its bodily parts are well proportioned but overall it is different from individual A. Yet both by themselves are very healthy, have well optimized bodies by themselves.

Now, let's say A is rather large, tall, muscular, while B is rather slender and shorter. When A and B get a child then it may inherit more or less the size of individual A but gets more or less the lung and heart from B (and yes, that's how it works with humans, not all organs are a perfect blend between A and B).
Now the child is much less optimized in its bodily physique though it came from two very healthy parents.


Health comes with a price in nature - with high selective pressure.
Knowing all this, it becomes pretty straight forward that trying to preserve patterns by mating with someone who is similar is preferred in nature. It's probably the main reason why social organisms became social in the first place - the advantage of recognizing similarities in others by recognizing parts of oneself in others and feeling attracted to that.


Your fault is in taking this to be a deterministic process, rather than a probabilistic one. In fact, I would be interested in taking a look at the literature you based your affirmation on, the one in bold. I want to see some numbers.

Quote :
Yet there is still this myth that mixing it up is really healthy.
Wouldn't want to become an inbred...
Yeah...

This "myth" is at fact set at the core of Mendelian Genetics. If you don't understand it, read more.

Quote :

I wonder how 50 million people living worldwide in 500 BC, managed to produce healthy people.
Just not enough variability, not enough potential for mixing... obviously.

This is illogical. Can you accept that a population of 10 can be more varied than a population of 100?

Your claims in this post remain unsubstantiated.
Back to top Go down
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:39 pm

The increase of the level of entropy - There are those changes which happen without effort.
Those processes are dispersing energy, which means energy is getting dispersed evenly throughout space. What this word energy is referring to is the potential activity, the potential for change. As energy is dispersing the potential for change is diminishing, the rate of activity, the rate of change is also slowing down (for example, a hot tub of water is cooling quickly at first and slows down its cooling process as the water approaches room temperature).

All living things have in common that they try to maintain and expand their particular order, their pattern. Yet that which is alive is also exposed to those processes which happen without effort and to maintain their order, to maintain themselves or to even grow, they need to make use of the change which is happening around them and direct it to sustain and support their particular self. Living things even facilitate this rate of change, they accelerate it to extract this potential for change for their own benefit. (like chewing and digesting the leave of a plant to extract the energy to sustain oneself.) All chemical processes in our body are basically a chain of changes, arranged and directed to sustain ourselves and to grow.

Life is the guidance, the domination, of changes happening around and within us.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:20 am

This is Schrödingers What is life?

Quote :
Life doesn't bring about more order than was before, what it does is directing the flow.

Anything otherwise would be a paradox, or contradiction, this true-believerism. 

There would only be one option.



Maintaining order unnaturally, but it is quite natural to the open-system. The life catalyst that accelerates entropy.







Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2101
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Sun Dec 14, 2014 5:06 am

Unnatural... that which I find revolting because it is not part of my nature and doesn't fit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Tue Aug 11, 2015 10:20 pm

Question

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Trixie Celūcilūnaletumoon

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 502
Join date : 2015-04-20
Location : Repentance.

PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy Tue Aug 11, 2015 11:49 pm

My 3 cents is the "brute theory". That there are a shit-ton of universes, which means a shit-ton of energy.

Out of all of these universes, over time, only a couple developed sentience. And we are only in the ones that developed sentience, through "brute luck", meaning we are here because there's life here. And we are not in the other universes because theres no possibility of life there. Thus "brute theory." So this way it still follows the laws of entropy, as the brute force mechanism is instantaneous but could be described as a forward moving culling progress of brute force time.

Otherwise, entropy could just be a general "guideline", and not a rule, per-se.

Speaking of Brazillians, last night I met one online and he cussed me out and said hurtful things about my mother.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Thermodynamics and Entropy

Back to top Go down
 
Thermodynamics and Entropy
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 6 of 6Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 Similar topics
-
» Entropy, life and other things

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: