tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17262131.post113836659767154382..comments2023-09-30T21:01:03.664+01:00Comments on El Gentraso: Big botanyJohn Whitfieldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07808639289887327978noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17262131.post-1164490190435633162006-11-25T21:29:00.000+00:002006-11-25T21:29:00.000+00:00Quarter power scaling, as presented by WBE, is alm...Quarter power scaling, as presented by WBE, is almost complete nonsense. If metabolic rate scales to the 3/4 power of body mass, without considerations of metabolic efficiency [which reduces the value of the exponent], that is, if metabolic efficiency is automatically taken to be 100%, then things smaller than one gram [insects, for example] have extremely small metabolic rates, not high ones, when compared to larger creatures of more than 1 gram mass. Do the math. This means that low metabolic rates mean short lives, something I agree with - that is - that metabolic rate and longevity are directly related. The problem is that there are too many exceptions to this picture. More massive rats live shorter lives than less massive rats, though one might conclude their metabolic rates should be greater, and so they should live longer.<BR/>WBE even go so far as to claim that the metabolic rate modeled by the quarter power equation is basal metabolic rate, despite that basal metabolic rate cannot possibly countenance or account for motor activity. These guys are going off half-cocked. Their confusion is best displayed in the claim that quarter power scaling of metabolism might hold the key to the secrets of aging. While saying this they all aver that a rat and a pigeon have the same mass, and so, metabolic rate, but the pigeon lives ten times longer. If this is so then the equation has no significance for aging - unless the pigeon has a metabolic rate 10 times that of the rat. And it might, if metabolic rate is field rather than basal, and the metabolic efficiency of the rat is 17% while that of the pigeon is 26%. But this is a refinement that WBE are not capable of making given their dedication to the idea that the metabolic rate is basal.<BR/>Finally, if bacteria have a mass of 10 to the -9 grams, and if metabolic rate is directly proportional to life span, then bacteria should live less than 1 second. Yet it is known that some bacteria are virtually immortal, or are capable of life spans in the centuries. How could this be according to quarter power scaling? Well, they could have such life spans if their metabolic efficiency were less than 25%, more like 2 or 3 percent, but, again, this is a refinement that WBE are not capable of making since they are stuck on basal metabolic rates which, they insist, are mass specific, and therefore must be divided by mass as if the structure of the mass had no effect on the efficiency of energy capture and distribution, and could be ignored. WBE should go back to school rather than parade around as profound thinkers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com