drkodos wrote on 03/19/08 at 01:06:56:

Died today; I just heard about this from one of my students.

Oh, en passant:

"Maybe the disagreement stems from a different interpretation of what genetics is?  Or maybe you would argue that the pancake analogy also refutes “no physics = no molecular biology”?"

Nah, I don't think there is a refutation of that claim at all.   I was merely saying that physics doesn't seem as integral to genetics as chemistry.  If that is true, then why make the "no physics" part of that claim when the other would serve the point better?   
The pancake thing was obviously just fluff to point out that simply because something is part of a dependent chain of causation doesn't mean that it is somehow more relevant than other links in that chain a priori; which links deserve a privileged status seems rather personal, if not arbitrary in some cases.  And since I think we agree that physics is hardly the core of genetics, I don't think its deserve the credit for the advances made in that field of study. 
Physics is clearly involved at some level, but it seems wrong to me to make such a strong claim.   

More fluff:
Physics can explain the state of my brain when I tell a joke, but we don't think in terms of physics when determining if the joke is funny (i.e. successful). Nor is physics to blame if its not successful (which seems more likely at this point).   
Physics is there and can be used to describe what's going on, for sure, but its just not particularly relevant at that level.  It just doesn't seem to matter as much.   

And with that...I'm off to the Caro-Kann and away from this interesting, but rather time-consuming thread.

Best to all,
Nietzsche

ErictheRed wrote on 03/18/08 at 18:36:56:


Yes, you would seem to have your work cut out for you there.  Aside from the not-believing-in-evolution stuff, I recently heard a physicist from Case Western Reserve mention that it has been a stable finding in an annual poll by some science organization that US adults split about 50-50 on whether the statement "The earth revolves around the sun, and takes a year to do so" is true or false.  (Cue discussion of relative motion etc.) 

Yes, I'm assuming that one of your statements might be false ...

Undergraduate degrees in BOTH physics AND engineering notwithstanding, I doubt you are any more qualified to discuss these ideas than the rest of us tossers.  Ah, the arrogance of youth.  Reminds me of all the B.S. I was filled with after I got my B.S.!

Perhaps more to the point we are, for the most part, arguing about nothing!

Perhaps the one thing you have going for you is that you have the sense not to waste your time with such arguments.  Good luck in grad school where, if your'e lucky, you'll get a good idea how little you actually know.

Nietzsche wrote on 03/18/08 at 02:56:26:

An amusing analogy, but I think it kind of misses the point.

[1] 19th century genetics was superseded by 20th century molecular biology.  Modern genetic engineering is an offshoot of this.  We’ve long ago moved beyond counting pea plants and fruit flies.

[2] The key players in the birth and development of the field on molecular biology were physicists (e.g., Schrodinger, Crick) and chemists (e.g., Pauling, Watson).

[3] Therefore “no physics = no molecular biology” translates to “no physics = no modern genetics.”

[4] And “no chemistry = no modern genetics,” but MNb (physics elitist that he is ) would argue that this is just a restatement of point [3]!  

If you want to restrict the discussion to pre-20th century biology, then you are right.  19th century genetics is no more dependent on physics than particle accelerators are dependent on pancakes (and lumberjacks!   ).

Maybe the disagreement stems from a different interpretation of what genetics is?  Or maybe you would argue that the pancake analogy also refutes “no physics = no molecular biology”?

Nietzsche wrote on 03/17/08 at 18:17:01:

Just one question with regards to physics and genetics: How on earth did those biologists "see" those DNA chains and recognise them?
It is not like it is all deduced from Mendel and fruitflies.

MNb wrote on 03/18/08 at 03:44:59:

True, but the point of this (as well as the other examples given) was that quantum mechanics was not merely an extension of classical mechanics but represented a dramatic step forward into modern physics.  So dramatic, in fact, that one of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century (arguably THE greatest) had trouble accepting it because it produced conclusions which had no counterpart in classical mechanics.

BTW, it is no greater revelation to suggest that biology and chemistry have their foundations in physics than it is to suggest that physics has its foundations in mathematics.  You'll waste a lot of time, however, working your way from F=ma (or the "extension" Hψ = Eψ) to, for example, the mechanism of action of macrolide antibiotics or DNA amplification by PCR - but you're welcome to try should you feel the need to do so!  

Start with the concept of 0, a few key Greek and Arabic symbols, and everything else follows.  It's all just applied mathematics when you think about it. So simple.  Easy as pi!  

"Cars, trains, airplanes, computers, internet, electricity at home, transistors, must I go on? On what principles do you think all those instruments are made that ensure your extended life expectancy and quality of health after you have got a car accident? Without physics any doctor would be helpless."

Yes, of course Biology doesn't exist in a vacuum.   
And yes doctors would be helpless without physics, but of course they rely not only on physics, but on a common language and nourishing food and a breathable atmosphere and intentionality and mathematics and and and...
But doesn't it seem very strange to give physics the credit for medical advances?  Why not give the credit to gravity since they need that?   
Or to the cerebral cortex since geneticists and doctors obviously need the one too?


" In this sense, Willempie's statement "No physics = no genetics" possesses an element of truth (dare I use this word?)."


But isn't that ultimately just to say they're codependent?
Such a small 'element of truth' would also, by association, exist between, say, pancakes and particle accelerators.  You need pancakes to feed those lumberjacks who cut down the trees to make paper to print grant proposals to secure the funds to build particle accelerators.  The whole "house that jack built" chain of causation doesn't accomplish much when taken so liberally.  I'm exaggerating, of course, but the point is that while  I cannot deny physics plays SOME part in genetics, its hardly a core facet.  And much less so than in other fields.

My original point was  "No physics=no genetics" seems odd when you could easily say "No chemistry=no genetics" and be a lot more correct.  Why pick physics when it is not nearly as essential?

If physics gets the credit for medical advances, then I cannot argue.  Obviously, if physics is also going to get the credit for astronomy, chemistry, biology, cars, trains, internet, and everything we need to live, then YES...physics is the most successful science of the past 200 years.  In fact, it seems to be the ONLY science!

As for quantum mechanics ultimately grounding into Newtonian physics...well, I'll have to refer to my physic professor who said something very different. But I must admit that I haven't got a clue what the correct answer is since I don't hold an advanced degree in either physics or mathematics.  Since I am woefully ignorant of that field (I've only read the literature for "general" audiences) I really should remain silent and let the better informed amongst you decide.

Cheers,
Nietzsche

p.s. - As I said before, unless I know what "success" actually means in the sciences, I really cannot judge which is the most successful.  I, personally, have heard that particular claim made about biology and medicine much more often than about physics. It seems to me that physics used to dominate but the past 50-75 years has seen the hard sciences slipping in terms of popularity and in terms of results.  But maybe I've only heard that claim made simply because I live with a geneticist  and I got my degree in Philosophy (and not science).  I'm sure a lot of chemist will assure me that Chemistry is the root of everything "successful".  I cannot argue with them either.