|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
Wouldn't this ability itself be the product of a random mutation? Wouldn't the ability to alter DNA, be governed by information kept in the DNA, which would have had to randomly mutate into the DNA at some point? Anything that the cell can do, or that DNA can do, must be the product of a former random mutation right? Or are you claiming that DNA sprung into existence with the ability to intelligently guide its own mutations?
What the article is saying, is that DNA seems to be recording information from its environment and alters itself in order to adapt. Just because this discovery was recent, doesn't mean it hasn't always been this way. As i said before, most mutations are detrimental, nonsensical, or neutral to the organism because they are a non-repaired fuck-up of letter sequencing in DNA. According to Darwinism, these fuck-ups occasionally produce novel beneficial sequences and subsequent traits and these novel traits are selected by the environment according to fitness.
I think that is pretty much nonsense. It seems much more logical to propose that DNA takes information received from its environment and purposefully sequences itself with respects towards a beneficial mutation. Meaning, DNA behaves intelligently.
The answer to questions 1 and 2 are answered above.
and.. Quote:
If DNA doesn't require reproduction to change, and can alter itself throughout our lifetime "in real-time", then why is it that we die? Why doesn't DNA stop letting itself degrade and turn us into immortal ever-improving super-organisms? Surely if DNA can alter itself in real time, then it wouldn't take billions of years (making mistakes at every turn and causing countless unnecessary suffering and deaths) to reach it's end goal would it?
Because not dying would be detrimental to diversity and complexity. DNA is the immortal ever-improving super-organism.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,858
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
1) If DNA is intelligent, and guides its own mutations toward some desired end, then why are the vast majority of mutations completely miserable, unsuccessful, un-beneficial fuck-ups?
2) Why do mutations that cause cancer happen so often? Why do mutations cause still-borns and birth defects so often? If DNA design is so intelligent, then why does it seem so unintelligent?
3) If DNA doesn't require reproduction to change, and can alter itself throughout our lifetime "in real-time", then why is it that we die? Why doesn't DNA stop letting itself degrade and turn us into immortal ever-improving super-organisms? Surely if DNA can alter itself in real time, then it wouldn't take billions of years (making mistakes at every turn and causing countless unnecessary suffering and deaths) to reach it's end goal would it?
1. All the oddball shit is what makes it interesting. if you tried to design a perfect organism, you would fail, because conditions would change. If you tried to design a system that gave you many "dice rolls" to adapt to conditions, it might work out.
2. Something has to kill you eventually. could you imagine a world where people were immortal? let alone evrything else. it would be a horrible nightmare
3. whats the end goal? also, google epigenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
Quote:
In genetics, epigenetics is the study of cellular and physiological trait variations that are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence; in laymans terms, epigenetics is essentially the study of external or environmental factors that turn genes on and off and affect how cells read genes.[1] Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell. These alterations may or may not be heritable, although the use of the term "epigenetic" to describe processes that are not heritable is controversial.[2] Unlike genetics based on changes to the DNA sequence (the genotype), the changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype of epigenetics have other causes, thus use of the prefix epi- (Greek: επί- over, outside of, around).[3][4]
The term also refers to the changes themselves: functionally relevant changes to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of mechanisms that produce such changes are DNA methylation and histone modification, each of which alters how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence. Gene expression can be controlled through the action of repressor proteins that attach to silencer regions of the DNA. These epigenetic changes may last through cell divisions for the duration of the cell's life, and may also last for multiple generations even though they do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[5] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.[6]
One example of an epigenetic change in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo, which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, as a single fertilized egg cell – the zygote – continues to divide, the resulting daughter cells change into all the different cell types in an organism, including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, endothelium of blood vessels, etc., by activating some genes while inhibiting the expression of others.[7]
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said:
Quote:
now you are really showing your ignorance by claiming that some mutations are not beneficial.
Quote:
The fact that most mutations are not beneficial to an organism/species...
Is it just me, or is this a stark self-contradiction?
Not if your reading comprehension is above that of a third grader. Let me explain how the above is not a self-contradiction: see highlights in my quote.
Quote:
Now, how is it that a fuck-up of sequencing leads to a beneficial trait?
That has yet to be explained by modern biology.
If something makes enough mistakes, eventually it will stumble across a mistake that benefits it. When an organism reproduces, the offspring don't have identical DNA. Some will have DNA which will codes for proteins that will benefit the organism's survival. Some will have different DNA, that codes for proteins that will be a detriment to the organisms survival. If a gazelle has, say, five offspring, some will be faster runners than others, based on differences in their DNA, caused by random mutations. Some will be slower than their mother, some faster, because they all received random DNA mutations, some of which improve their likelihood of survival and some of which detract from their likelihood of survival. The reason evolution by natural selection has been central to biology for so long is that it is extremely simple to understand, yet powerful enough to explain so much depth and complexity within biology. I continue to fail to see your reasons for rejecting it.
I do not reject natural selection, I reject random beneficial mutation. If you understood the depth of sequencing that goes into a single gene, you would understand when I say, you cannot randomly hit keys on your keyboard and write a novel and that the same logic applies with respects towards the sequencing of a beneficial mutation.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: hTx]
#21786527 - 06/10/15 12:53 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
According to Darwinism, these fuck-ups occasionally produce novel beneficial sequences and subsequent traits and these novel traits are selected by the environment according to fitness.
I think that is pretty much nonsense.
But it's so incredibly easy to see how thousands of random mutations can cause at least one single beneficial mutation. You've received more than one example so far.
When un-beneficial, you claim that a mutation is: "..a non-repaired fuck-up of letter sequencing in DNA" But when beneficial, you claim that a mutation is: "DNA behaving intelligently."
This is like a five year old kid playing Street Fighter Two for the first time, versing his more experienced older brother: He picks up the controller, and chaotically button mashes with no plan or pattern. When he loses, he says he fucked up. But on that extremely rare occasion that his exact pattern of random, chaotic button mashing was precisely what was required to beat his brother, in that particular 1 in 1000 situation, and his brother looks at him with utter stupefaction, he says "I took information from my environment and intelligently altered my approach to best counter your style of fighting."
It reminds me of defenders of classical Christian intelligent design, and all of Christianity for that matter. When something good happens e.g. a bullet narrowly missed any vital organs of a brave Christian soldier in a battle: "God did it." But when something awful happens e.g. a young kid gets leukemia and undergoes three horrible years of suffering and then dies: "Evil in the world is caused by sin" or "God works in mysterious ways" or there is no mention of God at all, sometimes bad things just happen.
Quote:
Because not dying would be detrimental to diversity and complexity. DNA is the immortal ever-improving super-organism.
It wouldn't be detrimental to complexity, only diversity; in fact, I would say that the addition of immortality to an organism is an improvement of complexity. And why is diversity important to your theory? Diversity is only important when mutations are random and blind, diversity occurs through different, random mutations.
If "DNA is the immortal ever-improving super-organism," then it doesn't matter whether we die or not, or whether there is complexity or diversity. Why doesn't DNA just change into whatever it wants to in every organism on the planet, right now? Why wait? Surely with 3.5 billion years under it's belt it could have done a better job than it has so far right?
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: ballsalsa]
#21786539 - 06/10/15 12:58 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
1. All the oddball shit is what makes it interesting. if you tried to design a perfect organism, you would fail, because conditions would change. If you tried to design a system that gave you many "dice rolls" to adapt to conditions, it might work out.
2. Something has to kill you eventually. could you imagine a world where people were immortal? let alone evrything else. it would be a horrible nightmare
3. whats the end goal? also, google epigenetics
1.But dice rolls are random..?..
2. Why would it be a horrible nightmare? Why does something have to kill us eventually? Un-explained assumptions.
3. I don't know.. hTx is the one claiming that DNA is intelligent, he should be able to provide some end goal? If DNA is not blind then it must be working toward something. What is it working toward hTx?
Also, I already know about epigenetics.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: hTx]
#21786550 - 06/10/15 01:02 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Let me explain how the above is not a self-contradiction: see highlights in my quote.
Which quote? I am fairly new to these forums and can't find things that easily? What is highlighted?
Quote:
If you understood the depth of sequencing that goes into a single gene, you would understand when I say, you cannot randomly hit keys on your keyboard and write a novel and that the same logic applies with respects towards the sequencing of a beneficial mutation.
Yes you can. With enough monkeys at enough type writers, one of them WILL eventually produce Shakespeare's entire works.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: hTx]
#21788406 - 06/10/15 01:44 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It's quite clear that natural selection is taking place. What has not been resolved is whether genetic change is always purely random or not. There is increasing evidence in biological circles that there is more to the story than we have thought. Changes leading to selection are complex, and not well understood.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/
(Scientists are exploring how organisms can evolve elaborate structures without Darwinian selection)
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,858
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
secondorder said:
Quote:
1. All the oddball shit is what makes it interesting. if you tried to design a perfect organism, you would fail, because conditions would change. If you tried to design a system that gave you many "dice rolls" to adapt to conditions, it might work out.
2. Something has to kill you eventually. could you imagine a world where people were immortal? let alone evrything else. it would be a horrible nightmare
3. whats the end goal? also, google epigenetics
1.But dice rolls are random..?..
2. Why would it be a horrible nightmare? Why does something have to kill us eventually? Un-explained assumptions.
3. I don't know.. hTx is the one claiming that DNA is intelligent, he should be able to provide some end goal? If DNA is not blind then it must be working toward something. What is it working toward hTx?
Also, I already know about epigenetics.
1. right. a system that exploits the versatility of randomness
2. for something to be considered alive, it has to be capable of reproduction. this is why viruses are not considered alive. If living things were reproducing, and yet never dying, mineral mass and water and atmosperic gasses would be gradually converted to biomass. There would eventually be no land, water, or atmosphere left, and the earth would die out. sounds like a nightmare to me.
3. how's this for a proposal: An intelligence designed life not to produce the "most perfect organism" but rather, to produce wide degrees of variation, for entertainment.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: ballsalsa]
#21789763 - 06/10/15 06:52 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
1. right. a system that exploits the versatility of randomness
This is not what hTx is arguing, hTx seems to suggest that mutations are not random. Do you disagree?
Quote:
2. for something to be considered alive, it has to be capable of reproduction. this is why viruses are not considered alive. If living things were reproducing, and yet never dying, mineral mass and water and atmosperic gasses would be gradually converted to biomass. There would eventually be no land, water, or atmosphere left, and the earth would die out. sounds like a nightmare to me.
First off, viruses kind of do reproduce, and there is no precise definition for life, just a list of things that some scientists think a thing has to have for it to be 'alive.' And why do immortal things need to reproduce? Why couldn't we just live forever (occasionally dying from accidents) and reproduce very slowly to maintain the population at a particular number? Just because we have the capability to reproduce doesn't mean we have to. We also have the capability to hunt and kill our own food, but that doesn't mean we have to. In fact it is plausible that in the near future that all food eaten will be grown in a lab.
Quote:
3. how's this for a proposal: An intelligence designed life not to produce the "most perfect organism" but rather, to produce wide degrees of variation, for entertainment.
To be entertained, a thing must be conscious. Are you arguing that DNA is conscious? This is yet another claim on top of all of the claims made already, which also needs evidence and reason.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,858
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
for the record, i've not seen evidence of DNA being intelligent. you are correct in stating that that is only OP's proposition.
also, viruses do not reproduce. they rely on a host organism to reproduce for them. they do it a couple different ways, one of which is highly susceptable to mutation, and the other is much less so.
finally, i'm not proposing that DNA is entertained, but rather that it is the entertainment for "something else"
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: ballsalsa]
#21790253 - 06/10/15 08:33 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Where does cross-breeding figure in?

Zebrant
--------------------
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: ballsalsa]
#21790447 - 06/10/15 09:10 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
also, viruses do not reproduce. they rely on a host organism to reproduce for them. they do it a couple different ways, one of which is highly susceptable to mutation, and the other is much less so.
Yeah I wasn't arguing that they were alive, I was just pointing out that "reproduction" and "life" are man-made concepts, that aren't as clear-cut as many people think.
Quote:
finally, i'm not proposing that DNA is entertained, but rather that it is the entertainment for "something else"
I am definitely open to these sorts of possibilities. But I currently only entertain these concepts as exactly that: "possibilities." Do you think there is actually some sort of consciousness that is controlling biological evolution for it's own entertainment? Or are you unsure and like me, just entertain the possibility of such a notion.
|
lessismore
Registered: 02/10/13
Posts: 6,268
|
|
This discussion and any discussion in the world makes no sense We are just uttering our subconscious minds, making it into thoughts, to prove our point But our point wasn't our own, it was decided by our subconscious
Cognitive_Shift hTx :-)
so you are trying to prove your subconscious influence on your brains something is speaking through you, you are not actually thinking on your own
or are you?
how do you know your thoughts right now are not projections ?
we could be projecting all our lives
so some see intelligent design some see god some see evolution
but all those 3 could be projections of what people want to see, instead of what they analyze themselves to science is only as applied as you make it, it has lots of boundary conditions, science isn't necessarily true religion isn't necessarily true either...
did you see evolution all your life? did you see god all your life?
does it make it right that your brain thinks it now because your highschool taught you it was right?
evolution looks right, might not be right, unprogram that bit and unprogram the god created all bit too
when we perceive reality through a lens of our own we are not really seeing things as it is, but as we think it is so you can take any theory and it will be equally right within its framework
yes you could say science knows nothing..
it is impossible to know if we project all our lives... we only see what we want to see usually... and we will fight for it, to make others see our point as we do if we can make others believe like we do, it gives us comfort that we are right
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
What about drugs and psychedelics which seem almost designed for human consciousness?
*be back in a bit to elaborate am really busy*
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
lessismore
Registered: 02/10/13
Posts: 6,268
|
Re: Intelligent Design [Re: hTx]
#21791443 - 06/11/15 01:53 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
we only see what we want to see, we only see ourselves in others/the world
so if you trip and see god, you believed in god deep within
and others that trip and don't see god, didn't believe
your subsconscious can change, and suddenly you can start believing, then you see god
but does it mean god is there?
I have had as religious/nice experiences with anything as I had with psychedelics
first love, drunk love, lsd love, alone in nature, first sacred place in nature, when I built my own cave as a kid, love as a kid etc.

I have also had the 'intelligent design' without psychedelics, try fasting for 1-2 weeks then notice your body - I couldn't put words to it fully at that time though
your body follows your mind, a healthy mind produces a healthy body a healthy mind means no subconscous garbage/garbage thoughts - when you fast , exercise ,meditate, you purify your mind
so a pure mind gives you a healthy body
same happens with psychedelics, if you treat them right
we could just be our minds, and purifying our mind, that makes us healthier
there is nothing psychedelics do that you cannot get to without them it seems, i.e. sense deprivation tanks, intense meditation, fasting, lucid dreaming..
it is all already in the mind
psychedelics just show us ourselves , and we think that is intelligent
unfortunately there is often a price to pay with psychedelics that there isn't with meditation - they usually distort the mind for a while after, either they give manic thoughts, or low thoughts manic thoughts -> I love you all -> I have no self -> I am god -> I saw it all last night
it's a too elevated mood, that problem is not there with meditation / fasting
so trips are not always as good as they are said to be, there is a price to pay, and one should be willing to pay the price of a mind that needs to be defragmented afterwards
if you keep zooming in on reality , I bet at some zoom level it looks intelligent that's that psychedelics do
but in this case, intelligent is just what we cannot comprehend rationally
belief is really personal I believe, not something that can be argued, people have tried for centuries and centuries - you will never be able to convince anyone
we all got our own beliefs, and we fight to keep them any discussion is a projection of ones beliefs usually...
|
lessismore
Registered: 02/10/13
Posts: 6,268
|
|
my personal belief is that if you gain anything from psychedelics, then you were destined to
after I got into astrology I found out it said I would have a rebirth in 2012
that's funnily enough exactly the date where I took enough LSD to make it happen, had taken last 2 years at that time - turned my life around 180
I won't say I haven't gained anything from psychedelics , that would be a gross lie what I have gained was in me already, I had worked for it my whole life, and I had to pay as big a price as what I gained
there's a down for every up
growing your consciousness, as these molecules are known for often, has a drawback you see the foolishness of the world
there's belief, and there's debate, but I am not going to argue my belief that they can indeed unlock our minds/grow our consciousness - if we are ready
only peple who are ready "take the red pill" / go deep enough to be reborn
you can be reborn into apathy or into love , 2 ways of coming out
is that intelligent? it is what you were when you came to earth, it is your fate
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
You seem interested so do some real research into the topic of DNA intelligence.
Psychedelics, our own consciousness, synchronicity, Learys musings on the neurogenetic circuit..
There is something going on here..and it seems super-intelligent.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
|