Human DNA - just elaborate computer code?

[QuantumKev]

That's an interesting analogy Sammy. I have always thought it interesting too just how much the structure of DNA resembles the Caduceus staff, which represented Hermes, and "by extension trades, occupations or undertakings associated with the god" (Wikipedia).

Definitely lots to think about. I am curious to see what our resident skeptic Kepler has to say about the fact that 98% percent of our DNA is what is referred to as non-coding, or 'junk' DNA...? Why would evolution create so much of something so complex that isn't needed, or used?

Many Blessings,

QuanKev

Originally Posted by QuantumKev

I am curious to see what our resident skeptic Kepler has to say about the fact that 98% percent of our DNA is what is referred to as non-coding, or 'junk' DNA...? Why would evolution create so much of something so complex that isn't needed, or used?

"Resident skeptic", lol.

Well, firstly it's a bit of an adaptationalist fallacy to assume that every part of every living thing has a well defined evolutionarily-selected function (natural selection is one of the driving forces of evolution, but there are also things like genetic drift and random mutation that contribute as well).

Anyway, it turns out that a lot of 'junk' DNA isn't actually junk, so there does appear to be some evolutionarily pressures associated with the stuff.

[Sammy]

Wouldnt you agree the result of "natural selection", is due to a choice of mind to not focus on the safety of the body? It may not be in someones DNA to do so, but one can retrain thier thought to remember anything (plasticity). We would not have what we have if we didnt make mistakes and remember those. For instance climbing up a cliff is a choice, and like every choice it has consequences good and bad. Forgeting the bodies limits with your mind will break the pattern, stopping the mind and body cycle and ending the growth/life.

Our evelutionary step is simply remembering the bad things. The things in our way is what stands between us and our goal (whatever that might be). We do this in progression multiple times a second, essentialy deducing the best way to complete the act to our individual satisfaction.

Our DNA doesnt just dissapear though, it existed as a building block and you and in-turn gave the same for others. We cannot hide from the fact we existed, and what that leaves behind.

[Sammy]

Originally Posted by QuantumKev

That's an interesting analogy Sammy. I have always thought it interesting too just how much the structure of DNA resembles the Caduceus staff, which represented Hermes, and "by extension trades, occupations or undertakings associated with the god" (Wikipedia).

Definitely lots to think about. I am curious to see what our resident skeptic Kepler has to say about the fact that 98% percent of our DNA is what is referred to as non-coding, or 'junk' DNA...? Why would evolution create so much of something so complex that isn't needed, or used?

Many Blessings,

QuanKev

As above so below. :)

[QuantumKev]

Originally Posted by Sammy

As above so below. :)

Indeed! I love your avatar pic by the way. The good ol' dual slit experiment. One of the first things I learned about when I started really studying quantum physics. Then, if that wasn't enough, I learned about the 'delayed choice experiment', and that just blew my mind.

I was trying to think of some "smart" reply to post to all this, but in the end, it really comes down to belief. I have found that if one truly wants to argue something, they can find some science to back it up and defend it. And by the same token, if someone wants to argue the exact opposite, they can find some science to argue that point and back it up. Really, what it all boils down to for me is whether everything we see is the result of evolution that occured on a purely mechanical basis, with no interference by or input from any intelligent being or force, and driven only by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, or whether in some capacity, at some point in the birth and creation of the species Homo Sapiens, and possibly forebearer species, there was some level of involvement by some being(s)/force/energies/conciousness with some level of intelligence.

Because it cannot be definitely proven, nor can it be positively disproven (as much as some would like to), it really comes down to belief. While there is a great number of scientists who believe a purely materialistic view with no intelligence behind it, there are also those who believe that there had to have been some involved. I choose to align with the second group - just as some people choose to align with the first.

For me, I think the real importance in this comes down to this : the theory that instead of "seeing is believing", it is actually "believing is seeing." In other words, if someone doesn't believe something can happen, if that person refuses to believe it can, I think their lack of belief can actually influence what happens and decrease the chances that it will happen. By the same token, if someone truly believes something can happen, I think that belief increases the chances that it can happen. And while I cannot provide "proof" of this, I think most psychologists and others would agree that our beliefs can affect our reality.

SOOOO, rather than plod along not believing anything that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I like to keep an open mind, while at the same time knowing enough science and other knowledge to be able to 'separate the chaff from the wheat' as it were ; )

Many Blessings,

QuanKev

[Sammy]

Like the climbing up a cliff example. Many had to do so with animals, food/materials, and wagons to get to the west. The risk of dying was worthe to them more then staying in horrible conditions. You can also see many wonderfull sights from atop a summit. Many have fallen up the cliff toward unity (structure of comfert for all), but it will still be attempted since we know whats on the other side "peace".

[Sammy]

Originally Posted by QuantumKev

Indeed! I love your avatar pic by the way. The good ol' dual slit experiment. One of the first things I learned about when I started really studying quantum physics. Then, if that wasn't enough, I learned about the 'delayed choice experiment', and that just blew my mind.

I was trying to think of some "smart" reply to post to all this, but in the end, it really comes down to belief. I have found that if one truly wants to argue something, they can find some science to back it up and defend it. And by the same token, if someone wants to argue the exact opposite, they can find some science to argue that point and back it up. Really, what it all boils down to for me is whether everything we see is the result of evolution that occured on a purely mechanical basis, with no interference by or input from any intelligent being or force, and driven only by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology, or whether in some capacity, at some point in the birth and creation of the species Homo Sapiens, and possibly forebearer species, there was some level of involvement by some being(s)/force/energies/conciousness with some level of intelligence.

Because it cannot be definitely proven, nor can it be positively disproven (as much as some would like to), it really comes down to belief. While there is a great number of scientists who believe a purely materialistic view with no intelligence behind it, there are also those who believe that there had to have been some involved. I choose to align with the second group - just as some people choose to align with the first.

For me, I think the real importance in this comes down to this : the theory that instead of "seeing is believing", it is actually "believing is seeing." In other words, if someone doesn't believe something can happen, if that person refuses to believe it can, I think their lack of belief can actually influence what happens and decrease the chances that it will happen. By the same token, if someone truly believes something can happen, I think that belief increases the chances that it can happen. And while I cannot provide "proof" of this, I think most psychologists and others would agree that our beliefs can affect our reality.

SOOOO, rather than plod along not believing anything that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I like to keep an open mind, while at the same time knowing enough science and other knowledge to be able to 'separate the chaff from the wheat' as it were ; )

Many Blessings,

QuanKev

HAHA yes we are an amazingly bizarre species for sure. As you state one circling the other, around a single point "existence". Not untill our individual cycles are satisfied can we focus on something new.

Originally Posted by QuantumKev

Because it cannot be definitely proven, nor can it be positively disproven (as much as some would like to), it really comes down to belief. While there is a great number of scientists who believe a purely materialistic view with no intelligence behind it, there are also those who believe that there had to have been some involved. I choose to align with the second group - just as some people choose to align with the first

Don’t forget about people who would simply say “I don’t know.” Why do you have to ultimately conclude either way?

Are living things the result of a purely materialistic evolutionary process? I don’t know. Are living things the result of a purely divine process? I don’t know. Are living things the result of some sort of hybrid “it kinda looks like things evolved but maybe there was some sort of intelligent hand in there somewhere, guiding certain things” process? I don’t know. So, you might be able to figure out where I fall on this spectrum.

Originally Posted by QuantumKev

SOOOO, rather than plod along not believing anything that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I like to keep an open mind, while at the same time knowing enough science and other knowledge to be able to 'separate the chaff from the wheat' as it were ; )

Science can’t prove anything with 100% certainty (some would argue only real “proofs” exist in math). Scientific models are an approximation of reality. That being said, science has done a pretty darn good job of describing things in a useful way.


Here is a good quote that is very relevant to this discussion, which I think nicely illustrates that it’s not just a believer/nonbeliever dichotomy:

I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. –Richard Feynman

So, it's pretty clear that I like to keep an open mind as well (I'm here, aren't I?), contrary to what you have implied above (intentionally or not). (Science is all about keeping an open mind, otherwise scientific revolutions would never happen.)


Thanks for an interesting conversation, QuantumKev.

[Sammy]

Originally Posted by Kepler

Don’t forget about people who would simply say “I don’t know.” Why do you have to ultimately conclude either way?

Asside from the fore mentioned 2 sides, there is the third side neutral. Most would say this is indifference (which it can be). but its mostly not involving your focus on one matter over the other, simply observing the matters at hand. From this perspective of the event you create the ability to conclude on a option to unite both sides on a different understanding from the other two perspectives (focus is toward a solution, not a side). This would be a new center ball on the will line, where both sides can use this platform for support to grow new things from.

What gets in the way is peoples willingness to listen to or even entertain a new perspective. Everything is connected, but that doesnt mean one side connects to the other without some detours inbetween.

Originally Posted by Kepler

Yeah, a statement so silly that it's now known as Hoyle's Fallacy.

By saying this is "silly", you are denying the fact that a sequence of random chemical reactions is governed by the laws of probability.

You might want to take a look at the article "Life on Earth" in the September 2009 special issue of Scientific American on Origins. It may be that the first living protocells were based upon RNA rather than DNA, but then one is still faced with the very low probability of assembling RNA (not to mention the proto-proteins) from random chemical reactions.

I would also suggest that you read the following excellent article article, which does an excellent job of addressing the probability issues for random chemical processes in protocells:

D.J. Mullan, "Probability of randomly assembling a primitive cell on Earth", Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, vol. 1, 1-47 (Oct-Dec 2002).

If you cannot locate this article, send me an email and I will forward you a copy. Once you have read it, then we can discuss this topic further in a less "silly" way.

My opinion, given the low probability of random chemical reactions, is that life got to this planet from somewhere else.