Clearing up the mess of Old Biology's meiosis, so that teachers can understand it and teach it correctly and clearly to students.
TEACHING TRUE BIOLOGY// How a mathematician straightens-out Old Biology mess of Meiosis with a Aid of Teaching-- the Analogy-- using hands as chromosomes to clarify 46 to 92 to 23
Old Biology has the end results correct of Meiosis. Trouble is, they are terribly bad in teaching what goes on, terribly terribly bad in explaining and teaching the steps involved in Meiosis.
And this is really what an excellent mathematician is here for. To make clear what other scientists are unable to make clear.
Leave it to Old Biology, to never explain what is certainly a contradiction, a absurdity, a paradox that 46 chromosomes in humans goes to 92 chromosomes in order to end up as 23 chromosomes. It simply is not logical.
This is where a skilled mathematician needs to enter the picture and explain it in terms of something else. In terms of something easy to understand. This technique is called analogy. Analogy is often used in science to explain a difficult concept or
process and should have been used to explain Meiosis.
So what I am going to do is use the Analogy of Hands. These are imaginary hands, just simply and purely hands in space rather than chromosomes. The owners of hands are not in this analogy, they are left out. And each hand can do work, necessary work.
Hands come in Pairs.
When we start with a original cell that is going to go through Meiosis, it is a cell of 46 pairs of hands, or 92 specific hands, what Old Biology calls 46 pairs of chromosomes and 92 chromatids.
The first phase of Meiosis is not recognized as a phase at all. It is called Interphase. And Old Biology claims the 46 chromosomes as seen in the YouTube film by Amoeba Sisters. The Old Biology says the 46 chromosomes are duplicated.
But are they really duplicated or are they just simply separated out of their 92 Chromatids???
AP is not arguing with Old Biology number of 92, but AP is arguing whether a duplication has been done in Interphase. For it is more commonsense to think of the 46 pairs of Hands as 46 pairs of chromosomes and in Interphase, what happens is that merely
the 46 pairs of Hands are separated and located on the centromere (Amoeba Sisters).
So the Old Biology probably made a error and mistake here in thinking there was duplication when in reality there is merely separation of the 92 hands (chromatids).
AP, patient and slowly correcting Old Biology Meiosis
TEACHING TRUE BIOLOGY// How a mathematician straightens-out Old Biology mess of Meiosis with a Aid of Teaching-- the Analogy-- using hands as chromosomes to clarify 46 to 92 to 23
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 3, 2023, 5:17:34 PM (3 days ago)
to
So now, in the film clip of YouTube by Amoeba Sisters, is the best explanation so far I have seen of meiosis where she compares both mitosis and meiosis together. And has resolved some issues for me which no other book or electronic message has answered.
However there is still much unclarity in Amoeba Sisters when they speak of Interphase for meiosis and say the chromosomes duplicate in Interphase. So what exactly does she mean? Does she mean 46 go to 92 chromosomes.
Or, what I believe she means is that there is no duplication in Interphase, but merely the separation-out of the 92 chromatids that compose 46 chromosomes.
I believe the Amoeba Sisters made a mistake in saying-- duplication in Interphase, where instead, Interphase is a separation process of unraveling 92 chromatids that compose 46 chromosomes.
If I were able to ask the Amoeba Sisters directly-- ask them to follow say a XY chromosome of the 46 chromosomes, follow that XY into Interphase. Does the Amoeba Sister then say that in Interphase the XY goes to XYXY, or what I rather think-- the XY
merely is separating out its chromatids that compose XY.
AP, King of Science is naturally biased towards biology. It is my opinion that most biologists could not handle logic nor math calculus nor physics nor chemistry and thus they want to be a scientist and naturally flock towards biology. This is my bias.
And thus when in biology, explaining a complex process of Meiosis, that tendency to hate logic, hate math shows up in feeble explanations, mistaken explanations. And only when a highly skilled mathematician enters the fray, does the Obfuscation start to
be uncovered.
I have another bias towards biology, in that I feel biology is 100 times easier of a science than is physics, and that biology has no "too complex process to unravel". That physics and chemistry have complex problems, but not biology. This is of course a
bias opinion of mine, and it is why I am rather amazed that meiosis is so difficult for me, King of Science, to straighten-out. For here I am overhauling a book I wrote in 2019 on biology. So complicated is meiosis, that no-one has been able to explain
it with clarity and with precision.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 3, 2023, 6:59:38 PM (3 days ago)
to
Archimedes Plutonium<
plutonium....@gmail.com>
5:09 PM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So now, in the film clip of YouTube by Amoeba Sisters, is the best explanation so far I have seen of meiosis where she compares both mitosis and meiosis together. And has resolved some issues for me which no other book or electronic message has answered.
However there is still much unclarity in Amoeba Sisters when they speak of Interphase for meiosis and say the chromosomes duplicate in Interphase. So what exactly does she mean? Does she mean 46 go to 92 chromosomes.
Or, what I believe she means is that there is no duplication in Interphase, but merely the separation-out of the 92 chromatids that compose 46 chromosomes.
I believe the Amoeba Sisters made a mistake in saying-- duplication in Interphase, where instead, Interphase is a separation process of unraveling 92 chromatids that compose 46 chromosomes.
If I were able to ask the Amoeba Sisters directly-- ask them to follow say a XY chromosome of the 46 chromosomes, follow that XY into Interphase. Does the Amoeba Sister then say that in Interphase the XY goes to XYXY, or what I rather think-- the XY
merely is separating out its chromatids that compose XY.
AP, King of Science is naturally biased towards biology. It is my opinion that most biologists could not handle logic nor math calculus nor physics nor chemistry and thus they want to be a scientist and naturally flock towards biology. This is my bias.
And thus when in biology, explaining a complex process of Meiosis, that tendency to hate logic, hate math shows up in feeble explanations, mistaken explanations. And only when a highly skilled mathematician enters the fray, does the Obfuscation start to
be uncovered.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<
plutonium....@gmail.com>
5:22 PM (2 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I have another bias towards biology, in that I feel biology is 100 times easier of a science than is physics, and that biology has no "too complex process to unravel". That physics and chemistry have complex problems, but not biology. This is of course a
bias opinion of mine, and it is why I am rather amazed that meiosis is so difficult for me, King of Science, to straighten-out. For here I am overhauling a book I wrote in 2019 on biology. So complicated is meiosis, that no-one has been able to explain
it with clarity and with precision.
But that opinion is somewhat unfair of biology, for in another sense, DNA is nothing but Imperfect Light Waves. DNA is a Light Wave modeling and that is physics.
I wrote several books on the theme that DNA was a copy of Light Waves of physics.
My 34th published book of science.
Photons and Neutrinos have "perfect DNA/RNA" packaged inside them// biophysics series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 18Feb2021. This is AP's 34th published book.
Preface: Part of this is my history on the subject. And part is my current ongoing research into the geometry of the interior of photons and neutrinos. Many changes have occurred from 1995 to present 2019. Until 2018, I imagined the interior of atoms as
the Rutherford Model with nucleus and electrons as dot-clouds. However in 2017 when I discovered the real electron is the muon at 105MeV and real proton is 840MeV and the neutron is 945MeV leaving that little .5MeV particle as the Dirac Magnetic Monopole,
changes not only physics and chemistry but every hard science is changed. The big change is that subatomic particles have jobs, tasks, work to do and the proton is the coil in Faraday's law, the muon is the bar magnet in Faraday's law, the neutron is a
capacitor and the photon, neutrino are wires in the interior of atoms. This changes the geometry of the interior of atoms to where Rutherford model is thrown out the window. So we have the AP-Faraday model of the interior of atoms and that means closed
loops or rings. That new perspective also means photons have an interior geometry as well as neutrinos. And so, the double helix of DNA, RNA, is the same as two intertwined springs. The only thing I have missing is what is the A,T, C,G of a photon or
neutrino?
Currently as of 2021, I still need to solve the geometry of the interior of atoms and photons included. A spring with rings is the geometry, but I have a few more difficulties to iron out.
Cover Photo: Is a picture of a stretched slinky toy spring and I tried to intertwine them as a double helix. Looks like I came close. But sadly, when I pulled the toy spring down off, I found I had knotted the spring and had to take 15 minutes to unknot
the spring.
Length: 42 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07Q4ZY7PZ
Publication date : April 1, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1472 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Enabled
Print length : 42 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #138,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#4 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#6 in Biophysics (Kindle Store)
#8 in Molecular Biology (Kindle Store)
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<
plutonium....@gmail.com>
6:57 PM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
In their textbook Genetic Analysis, 6th ed, 1996, Griffiths, Miller,Suzuki, Lewontin, Gelbart on page 77 with Interphase illustrated apparently agrees with Amoeba Sisters filmclip on YouTube that there is duplication as they write, and I quote:
"Prophase: chromosomes have replicated, but centromeres have not"
So here, AP is going to argue against both Amoeba Sisters and authors of Genetic Analysis.
Are they positive that duplication took place, or are they mistaken with a "chromatid separation"??? That there was no duplication in Interphase to Prophase but merely a chromatid separation into 92 chromatids from that of 46 chromosomes.
And I would ask the physicists and chemists to come into this research and explore and explain that it is physically impossible to duplicate 46 Chromosomes given they are confined to a cell and that the cell has **not enough energy or materials within
the cell** to duplicate.
AP would contend, that the limits of physical duplication in cells is mitosis where the DNA is split in half and the cell is just able to garner and muster the materials and energy to make the DNA split in half to restore 2 identical DNA of its A,T and C,
G.
AP would argue, that it is physics and chemistry impossible to duplicate all the chromosomes of any particular animal or plant in one of its cells. Now I have not proven that nor have supporting evidence. I am going on purely a hunch. And I bet no
biologist has even raised this question of limitations of duplication in mitosis or meiosis.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 4, 2023, 2:07:23 PM (2 days ago)
to
Fortunately for AP, SCIENCE, 25Aug2023, "Cancer Chromosomes: A closer look at how aneuploidy helps tumors survive"
Fortunately for me that SCIENCE has a article on Chromosome division in meiosis. And although most reading this article would jump to the wrong conclusion-- the wrong conclusion that this article opposes the ideas of AP that Old Biology never had meiosis
correctly understood and has huge errors in their teaching of meiosis.
Why this article even starts out with several biologists thinking that stem cells would come to the aid and rescue of a fruit fly with a puncture hole injury, when instead, what happens is the hole is plugged by Polyploidy.
In other words, Biology is going through a new era of understanding.
For instance, I and most people never knew that by age 30 a large proportion of our heart cells is polyploid, which to me is astounding.
That 30% of all plants are polyploid.
Now the question I raised several days back was the question of energy of a cell and where it can get the materials in the cell if Old Biology is correct on going from 46 chromosomes to 92 chromosomes in humans in Interphase of meiosis. Can cells have
enough energy and materials.
And this SCIENCE article partially answers these questions, by saying these cells are huge compared to normal size cells.
All and all, what this SCIENCE article is telling us, is that our understanding of Meiosis in Old Biology is primitive understanding, and that Old Biology has many many mistakes and errors.
And to read this article and think it is a counter argument against AP who thinks that in Meiosis interphase there is __no duplication__ but merely a separation of all 92 chromatids of a human, is not in jeopardy. Not in jeopardy at all, because of cell
size. In human meiosis, normal meiosis, in interphase, the cells do not enlarge as in this Science article report, thus, supporting AP's claim of a separation, not a duplication in Interphase.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 5, 2023, 12:34:10 AM (2 days ago)
to
SCIENCE, 25Aug2023, page 825 "Stress Responders: Polyploid cells, which have extra copies of their genomes, may help tissues respond to injuries and species survive cataclysms.
"Indeed, some data suggest 80% of the cells in the human heart are polyploid by adulthood, up from none at birth."
On page 827 shows the Polyploid Cells as ** Supersized Cells** and this size increase is a benefit.
Now I turn to Genetic Analysis, 6th edition, 1996, Griffiths, Miller, Suzuki, Lewontin, Gelbart pages 60 and 61, and ask the logical question of ** if there is duplication of chromosomes, would not the cell size by larger, than the cell prior to
duplication??**
In other words I am using the Polyploid research in SCIENCE magazine Aug2023 to decipher whether Meiosis has a Duplication in Interphase, or, what I suspect, a mere separation of the chromatids in Interphase.
And the pictures shown in Genetic Analysis-- especially the Tetrad, finishing 4 cells with half the chromosomes as gametes, those cells are 1/4 the size of the original cell.
Apparently, from pictures alone, there is no increase in size of cell when it is posited a duplication of chromosomes in Interphase.
In some sense, commonsense, the SCIENCE research report is proving AP is correct and that all of Old Biology mainstream with their duplication in Interphase is wrong and in error.
So AP says, in Interphase, there is no duplication, but rather, there is Separation of chromatids, and for humans, that would be 46 chromosomes separating out into 92 chromatids.
Now, any wise-guy may ask AP, well, what about the SCIENCE article all about Polyploidy where a human cell has not just 46 chromosomes but 92 chromosomes or even 184 chromosomes. And I would say, yes, that is possible but you need a concomitant and
simultaneous doubling in size of the cell undergoing meiosis.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 5, 2023, 3:35:28 PM (yesterday)
to
Alright, I have a really good analogy started here with hands-- just simple hands in space without the owners of those hands. And these hands do a lot of work, whether in pairs or shuffled up in Space as would be in meiosis, or whether in mitosis, we
have original owners of hands divided and then grown back identical (what I called backfill in my book). Backfill is where we split DNA down the length of it and A to T in backfill or C to G in backfill yields identical original DNA.
In Meiosis, however, we end up shuffling whose hand goes with another hand.
I do this analogy because since 1950s when DNA was discovered and researched, that ever since 1950 we are so primitive, backwards and ignorant about Meiosis, for it is full of error and mistakes. And so, to solve the problem, the process of Meiosis is to
complex and complicated for biologists to understand much less teach properly.
In this situation, what is called for is the Teaching Aid of Analogy.
A chromosome is a DNA molecule with either part or all of the DNA.
And that is why I bring in Pair-of-Hands as Chromosomes. The 46 human chromosomes now becomes 46 pair of hands or 92 individual hands (chromatids).
In meiosis, those 92 individual hands get shuffled up to make 4 cells, each containing 23-pair-of-hands called gametes. And during sperm and egg fertilization, 23 pair-of- hands come together with another 23 pair-of-hands to restore back to 46 pair-of-
hands.
I better stop there and let that settle, because keeping track of what is a pair and what is separate individual caused so much confusion, that it is the prime cause of teachers in classrooms or even in Youtube film clips to not get that correct-- when
is it paired or when is it singlet.
Makes one want to ask the deeper question-- why does DNA pair up at all, in the first place.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 6, 2023, 3:42:47 AM (23 hours ago)
to
Archimedes Plutonium<
plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 5, 2023, 3:52:03 PM (12 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Perhaps, even better yet, instead of an analogy, maybe all I needed was the Units of Meiosis. The unit is clearly the chromatid. So instead of micky-mouse-monkeying around with chromosomes what better way to teach Meiosis than to use only Chromatids.
I am a skilled mathematician, and mathematicians are famous for precision, accuracy, even teaching. So the trouble in Old Biology is they used Chromosomes as units when clearly they are not units at all.
It would be like a stupid mathematician using 2 as the start of things, and forgetting there is a 0 and 1, especially 1.
So the trouble in Old Biology classrooms, is that in preaching meiosis, one never has a sense-- what the hell-- is that a pair or is that a singlet. And throughout the phases as seen in Genetic Analysis, 1996, Griffiths, Miller, Suzuki, Lewontin, Gelbart,
if students in the classroom periodically stoped the professor in his lecture in the phases, interphase and asked the question-- are these paired or are they singlet. That I bet you, it would styme the professor, for he would have to collect his senses,
himself, and wonder if the genetic material was paired or singlet.
So no wonder everyone in Old Biology thought the 46 chromosomes doubled in Interphase. When all they did was separate out the 46 paired chromatids into 92 separate individual singlet chromatids.
This is what happens when you enshrine a Topic of Science and use something other than the UNITS of that subject. You just get cluster-confused, and the science itself falls into error, easily falls into error when you do not make the Units the center of
focus.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<
plutonium....@gmail.com>
Sep 5, 2023, 5:03:44 PM (11 hours ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
So, I am coming rapidly to the conclusion that Units, a confusion in biology science that you always speak of units in a process, and not of some higher form. For you cannot follow the process unless you follow units. For Meiosis and Mitosis, the unit is
Chromatid, not chromosomes.
No analogy will correct meiosis if the fundamental problem is a Misuse of Units.
By using a tool of clarity-- the analogy--, for the complicated process of meiosis needs a analogy in order to understand it fully. And the analogy I shall use in this book is the analogy of two hands. Hands come in pairs and reading Old Biology, you
have the sense that you never know when a chromosome is paired or unpaired. Whether a chromosome is duplicated or whether it has been simply unpaired making 46 pairs go to 92 unpaired chromatids. So this is what is missing in Old Biology, a analogy to
teach what meiosis process is, with clarity.
I henceforth drop the analogy of hands, because the source of confusion is units.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 6, 2023, 3:53:54 AM (23 hours ago)
to
So, let me start this all over again, fresh new start.
The Human body has its cells of 92 Chromatids for DNA, in Mitosis to create a new cell, starts with 92 chromatids and ends in 2 new cells, both having 92 chromatids. The replication is merely a split down the middle of DNA with backfill of A goes to T,
and C goes to G.
In Meiosis for sex cells, the starting cell has 92 chromatids and needs to get down to 46 chromatids, for each parent. The male gamete is 46 chromatids and the female gamete is 46 chromatids. The end result is 4 gamete cells. Each of those gamete cells
has 46 chromatids.
That means there has to be One Duplication in Meiosis. Is the duplication in Interphase? Or is the duplication in Meiosis One or in Meiosis Two?
Here we ask the question of the recent SCIENCE article on polyploidy, of where in meiosis is the cell the largest in size??
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 6, 2023, 4:05:24 AM (23 hours ago)
to
Now I am going to have to be "distrustful" to some degree of Old Biology when they say 4 cells are produced in meiosis whereas 2 cells are produced in mitosis. I say that because in the female, she has what is called "polar bodies" and that 4 cells does
not seem to be the end product.
For the question of duplication in meiosis cannot be truthfully answered if we are unsure of 4 cells being the end product or not 4 cells.
Sure enough in Genetic Analysis, 1996, Griffiths, Miller, Suzuki, Lewontin, Gelbart, pages 60-61 shows the tetrad. If that were a human, would we have a tetrad only in males, and in females only 1 gamete while males have 4 gametes??
And this raises the interesting question of whether the gametes of the tetrad are all 4 are dissimilar? Or whether two are identical to each other and the other 2 identical, suggesting a mitotic duplication before tetrad. I think that 2 are similar
because of the high frequency of twins.
So so many questions.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:01 AM (2 hours ago)
to
On the BBC tonight was a curious news of imitating a embryo, but using stem cells. Just the opposite of the SCIENCE magazine report recently of where scientists expected stem cells to come to the rescue, and instead polyploidy cells came to the rescue.
I bring this up because in all fair appraisal, we are primitive in our understanding of cell dynamics in meiosis and mitosis.
--- quoting BBC ---
This research, published in the journal Nature, is described by the Israeli team as the first "complete" embryo model for mimicking all the key structures that emerge in the early embryo.
"This is really a textbook image of a human day-14 embryo," Prof Hanna says, which "hasn't been done before".
Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells which were reprogrammed to gain the potential to become any type of tissue in the body.
Chemicals were then used to coax these stem cells into becoming four types of cell found in the earliest stages of the human embryo:
epiblast cells, which become the embryo proper (or foetus)
trophoblast cells, which become the placenta
hypoblast cells, which become the supportive yolk sac
extraembryonic mesoderm cells
A total of 120 of these cells were mixed in a precise ratio - and then, the scientists step back and watch.
--- end quoting ---
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)