Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 4:15 AM
29 online now:
Dredge, PaulK (2 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,816 Year: 4,853/19,786 Month: 975/873 Week: 331/376 Day: 8/116 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Is DNA the TOTAL Instruction Set for a Lifeform?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 70 (628154)
08-07-2011 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Doctor Witch
08-07-2011 1:05 AM


Re: The Oral Tradition
So you do not think that any of the people involved talked about these theories whilst they were being ignored by the mainstream?

That's not what "oral tradition" means, but at any rate it's likely that Mendel (for instance) didn't talk about his work while it was being ignored because he was dead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-07-2011 1:05 AM Doctor Witch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-07-2011 10:55 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Doctor Witch
Junior Member (Idle past 2721 days)
Posts: 27
From: Both Sides
Joined: 08-05-2011


Message 62 of 70 (628181)
08-07-2011 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
08-07-2011 1:08 AM


No rational discussion?
No takers for a rational discussion then on the very important subject of inheritance, what is in chromosomal DNA and other possible forms of inheritance?

Just knee jerk emotional responses to anything that threatens indoctrinated unexamined assumptions? No thoughts?

Perhaps it would be useful to explain to Elhardt for the purposes of his video the psychological mechanisms behind the assumption that all inheritance is in chromosomal DNA from a Cognitive Behavioural stand point....

It warns that the belief that all inheritance is in DNA was actually formed unseen and unexamined in the subconscious mind.

This must be considered as a two stage process. The original decision was based on the discovery in 1944 that a characteristic was definitely coded in chromosomal DNA. Prior to that, it had believed DNA did not have enough storage memory and that the chromosomal proteins were a more likely candidate. I do not know if anybody at the time actually made the definitive statement that one characteristic being proven to be in DNA because it is logically flawed.

That statement did not have to be made. The important factor was that the decision was taken to focus investigation on DNA. A part of this was funding matters, consistency with Darwinism and public support for the wonders of science but even the most objective scientist will have been lured by a simple fact. DNA is simple. It is linear. Even though the scale of it was beyond thm, there was hope of understanding it. It is linear, there only four possible combinations and it is relatively fixed. It is vastly easier to study DNA than chromosomal proteins or extranuclear mechanisms.

It is this fact that all investigation was into chromosomal DNA that causes the unquestioned assumption that all inheritance is in DNA in the unconscious mind. Emotions are formed by experience, the unquestioned facts of the world according to human experience. What the experts experienced was that only DNA was investigated forming the emotional belief that DNA is the be-all and end-all. It is not questioned at the subconscious level.

This emotional belief is powerful. The subconscious had control of our physiological stress responses. When we encounter a theory that is compatible with our subjective experience of the world, we relax like we have eaten too much Christmas dinner. When we encounter something that contradicts our emotional belief, we become stressed, anxious and even angry on account of adrenaline release. Gut instinct, even physical symptoms dictate that we easily accept theories that are consistent with our experience without adequately questioning but become over-critical to try to reject any theory that is not consistent with that human experience.

We could call it the fundamental mental block. it makes the person unable to listen or understand arguments that contradict their personal experience.

This is the cause of an insideous mass subjectivity in all specialties, academic and otherwise. The world of their daily life becomes everything. Those that study DNA all day will unquestioningly believe that DNA is everything important in the outside world.

This is the root cause of closed minds and resistance to new thinking. It distorts logic, especially fragile linear logic so that the overall context is lost. And more than words, it subjectively distorts actions. It distorts the collection of evidence causing a self-perpetuating vicious cycle in which the unexamined assumption the all characteristics are in DNA is constantly reinforced and all other possibilites excluded.

As a mass psychological effect, all of the experts will agree on and defend the same theory and exclude other thinking. So of course, the ivory towers of academia are disinterested in knowing this because it discredits their self-governing status as a specialty. The expert and their reputation must be questioned and judged by outsiders and they do not like that. This subjective interest overwhelms the need to be informed and pro-active in The Noble Scientific Ethic of Objectivity.

Hence it can be said that the assumption that all characteristics are coded and inherited in DNA must be regarded with suspicion of mass subjectivity and an emotional basis rather than a rational one, complicated by the fact that the evidence collected will have been skewed towards proving it. The case must be very carefully examined and analysed. It is unacceptable to be blinded by the mountain of evidence collected for that case. Fundamental questions must be asked about what has not been investigated and usually they can only come from analytic logic rather than evidence.

Let us see how many knee jerk emotional overreactions that elicits....

Edited by Doctor Witch, : No reason given.

Edited by Doctor Witch, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2011 1:08 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 08-07-2011 11:08 AM Doctor Witch has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2011 12:38 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 08-07-2011 1:34 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-08-2011 1:37 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded
 Message 69 by Larni, posted 08-08-2011 1:46 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18366
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 63 of 70 (628183)
08-07-2011 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Doctor Witch
08-07-2011 10:55 AM


Re: No rational discussion?
Hi Doctor Witch,

I think you may be misreading what people are reacting to.

If you were only arguing that not all inheritance is through chromosomal DNA then I think you'll find that everyone agrees with you - after all, this is what the evidence clearly indicates. But in at least some of your messages you appeared to be arguing that most inheritance is through mechanisms other than chromosomal DNA. I think this may be what people are reacting to.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-07-2011 10:55 AM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16093
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 9.0


Message 64 of 70 (628192)
08-07-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Doctor Witch
08-07-2011 10:55 AM


Re: No rational discussion?
No takers for a rational discussion then on the very important subject of inheritance, what is in chromosomal DNA and other possible forms of inheritance?

etc...

See original message for rest of text... --Admin

Ah, amateur psychoanalysis. May I suggest another hypothesis as to why people aren't agreeing with you, namely that you have produced no evidence suggesting that you are right?

Let us know when you want to do so. Until you do, rational discussion must necessarily be confined to pointing out that you haven't.

Edited by Admin, : Save disk space by removing most of the quote of an entire rather lengthy message that appears only 2 messages earlier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-07-2011 10:55 AM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 70 (628199)
08-07-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Doctor Witch
08-07-2011 10:55 AM


Re: No rational discussion?
No takers for a rational discussion then on the very important subject of inheritance, what is in chromosomal DNA and other possible forms of inheritance?

There are plenty of takers for rational discussion, here. Anytime you'd like to be a part of it, you just have to stop making things up.

it makes the person unable to listen or understand arguments that contradict their personal experience.

So when are you going to listen or understand our arguments that contradict your personal experience? You asked for a source of information about hox genes. It was provided. Was that something you were going to respond to, or just pretend never happened?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-07-2011 10:55 AM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 66 of 70 (628263)
08-08-2011 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Doctor Witch
08-05-2011 11:41 PM


There are not even enough neurones in the brain to contain that information.

Is this really true? Can you support this with evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-05-2011 11:41 PM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 67 of 70 (628265)
08-08-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taq
08-06-2011 3:46 PM


Sounds familiar.
Why are humans and chimps different? It is because of differences in the sequence of bases in their genomes, isn't it? Or are you saying that if a human concentrated really hard that they could give birth to a chimp?

All this puts me in mind of L. Ron Hubbard's view about what constitutes the mind.

My vague memories of his idea was that the personality of the person was not down to the physical substrate (the brain) but the mind was a self determined thing.

That's why he hated psychiatry and psychology because they claim you can affect the mind via physical interventions.

Seems to me a similar arguement is going on here: it's not the material which is important in is the non-material.

Just anonther form of woohoo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 08-06-2011 3:46 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7693
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 68 of 70 (628293)
08-08-2011 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Doctor Witch
08-07-2011 10:55 AM


Re: No rational discussion?
Perhaps it would be useful to explain to Elhardt for the purposes of his video the psychological mechanisms behind the assumption that all inheritance is in chromosomal DNA from a Cognitive Behavioural stand point....

Scientists have investigated epigenomic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation patterns histone packaging. Scientists have also studied phenotype plasticity. These are well known and well studied mechanisms that are heritable and do not directly involved changes in DNA sequence.

In the case of epigenetics, the effects are small compared to the differences seen between species. Also, epigenetic mechanisms are only able to carry a phenotype forward a few generations. Epigenetics can not explain the differences between species, which is one of the very important things that scientists are trying to explain.

Phenotype plasticity is even weaker than epigenetics. These phenotypes are triggered by environmental cues. However, the plasticity of a phenotype is a direct result of DNA sequence. You tan when exposed to UV light because of the genes you carry, as one common example.

I don't think anyone is arguing that phenotype can not change with environment. What you seem to be ignoring is how it relates to evolution and differences between species. From my knowledge, no one has shown that a human can give birth to a chimp just by thinking about it. Skydivers do not give birth to children with wings. Human ability is defined by our DNA, be it physical or mental.

We could call it the fundamental mental block. it makes the person unable to listen or understand arguments that contradict their personal experience.

I understand your arguments just fine. What we are looking for is evidence to back up your arguments. That is the only way we can dig in and have a rational discussion.

Those that study DNA all day will unquestioningly believe that DNA is everything important in the outside world.

I study proteins and DNA, and I happen to believe that post-translational modification, transcriptional regulation, environmental conditions, and host factors are important as well. I think you have a gross misunderstanding of what scientists think, and why they think it.

It is often thought that the sequencing of the human genome was the last hurdle for understanding how human's work. This isn't even close to the truth. The human genome was just the first step. The second huge project, as it relates to DNA specifically, is the International HapMap Project. This project is mapping haplotypes, or alleles if you will. Knowing the genome of 4 people is great, but how do humans differ in their DNA? That is what the HapMap project is all about.

Next, we have the Transcriptome Project which looks at what genes are turned on in a given cell/tissue in a given species. This is EXTREMELY important for understanding embryonic development and tissue differentiation. It is also important for understanding host immunity, cancer, and a whole host of important medical conditions.

Last, but not least, we have the Human Proteome Project. This project focuses on what functions the proteins actually have in a given environment.

You need all of this information together to understand the DNA sequence and how it impacts inheritance, species differentiation, disease, and evolution. Scientists are NOT focusing on just DNA, but it is a very important aspect as all of the other processes relate back to the specific DNA sequence.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-07-2011 10:55 AM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3976
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 69 of 70 (628295)
08-08-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Doctor Witch
08-07-2011 10:55 AM


Re: No rational discussion?
Perhaps it would be useful to explain to Elhardt for the purposes of his video the psychological mechanisms behind the assumption that all inheritance is in chromosomal DNA from a Cognitive Behavioural stand point....

What does cognitive behaviour psychology or therapy have to do with chromosomal DNA? As a cognitive behavioural therapist I would be fascinated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Doctor Witch, posted 08-07-2011 10:55 AM Doctor Witch has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 70 of 70 (628595)
08-11-2011 8:24 AM


Geometry and your intestines
I came across an interesting article on Pharyngula which seems relevant to this discussion. He'd describing research published in Nature* on the embryonic development of the gut.

Apparently, the folding patterns of the gut are pretty consistent within a species - they always fold into the same shape. Now, based around some of the naive views expressed in this thread, for this complex pattern to be caused by your DNA, there'd have to be some gene which makes this bit fold here, another gene which makes another bit fold there, and so on for a very long time - the intestines being so long.

These researchers very elegantly demonstrated that this isn't at all necessary. The gut develops embyronically as a simple tube, attached to a sheet of tissue called the mesentery. It's schematically illustrated in the diagram from the paper below.

These two bits - the gut tube and mesentery, grow at different rates, and as they do, the characteristic folds begin to set in. The researchers did a simple experiment using a rubber tube and piece of rubber sheet, shorter in length than the tube. They stretched out the sheet to the length fo the tube and then stitched them together. When they released the tension, lo and behold, the rubber tubing folded into a position remarkably similar to that of a chicken gut. In the figure below, the top pictur (b) is the rubber model, while the bottom picture (c) is an actual developing chicken gut.

This is a neat little demonstration that you don't need to encode the exact shape of a complex pattern to produce that pattern. All that needs to happen is for different cells to multiply at different rates, and simple facts of geometry will cause many of the complex structures present in animals and plants to take shape.

*Savin T, Kurpios NA, Shyer AE, Florescu P, Liang H, Mahadevan L, Tabin CJ (2011) On the growth and form of the gut. Nature 476:57-63.


  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019