Luc Turpin

To Paulsroket - there is a breadth of knowledge available to you here, but many missed opportunities on your part of benefiting from it all. Please take into account what they are saying before posting. Argumentation will then turn into solid discussion beneficial to all parties. Nonetheless, read myself the thread from top to bottom and learning a lot.

I have a very open mind on mind, having posted some of my thoughts on this forum, but there is nothing in your post that I can relate to or interested in engaging with.

I am autodidact, so I guess it shows.

I will then take a pause here and explore by myself the basics of evolution. Thanks for the discussion and suggestion.

So, below indicated factors have marginal impact on evolution? 1- Some epigenetic states transmitted intergenerationally; Heritable “epialleles” common in plants and subject to natural selection 2- Epigenetic variation enhancing phenotypic plasticity and phenotypic variance, thus can modulate the effect of natural selection on sequence-based genetic variation. 3- Phenotypic plasticity central to adaptability, epigenetic mechanisms generating plasticity and acclimation important to consider in evolutionary theory 4- Some genes under selection to be ‘imprinted’ identifying the sex of the parent from which they were derived, leading to parent-of-origin-dependent gene expression and effects, which can generate hybrid disfunction and contribute to speciation. 5- Epigenetic processes contributing directly to DNA sequence evolution, because they act as mutagens and modulate genome stability by keeping transposable elements in check From this article https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33866814/#:~:text=Epigenetics%20is%20the%20study%20of,the%20preservation%20of%20genome%20integrity “Epigenetic effects are not only common, but can also underlie and influence many aspects of evolution. This is true for both epigenetic effects that are only expressed within a single generation, as well as for trans-generational epigenetic inheritance.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-018-0113-y "Epigenetic marks, including DNA methylation and Histone modifications, can be triggered by environmental effects, and lead to permanent changes in gene expression, affecting the phenotype of an organism" https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.b.22571 Please let me know what you think

Agree, no goal is not the same as saying it is random. DNA manipulation is the key factor, not whether that DNA remains intact or not. For example, if I exercise, a whole lot of physiological effects occur. One of them is that methylation groups are added onto certain DNA molecules. Understood that this changes the activity of a DNA segment without changing the sequence. During transcription (hope I am using the right term), "tagged" DNA molecules are "repressed-silenced", which brings about a different outcome than if they were not “repressed-silenced". There is good evidence that the outcome is better health. And so, this is DNA manipulation at one of its’ finest hours and seems, at least for me, to play away from predestination. As Stephen Hawking once famously said - “I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look both ways before they cross the street.” Genes load the gun, lifestyle fires it. There is intention to do or not to do. Agree to all, especially that "trust is provisional too". Provisional to evidence that is!

None obeys the command of their DNA to the letter, but some espousing a rigid sense of evolution still believe that it is all random. Even some accounts on this tread lean heavily in favour of max-randomness. Also, I was presenting the latter two articles (which are basically coming from the same study) to corroborate that DNA shuffling was happening. However, your post above made me realise that there was a much simpler way of doing this; conception, epigenetics and immune cell recombination. On cephalopods, its more than 60 per cent of RNA transcripts that are re-coded by editing. So, DNA is suffled in response to environmental stress? Is it still full-mechanical?

While searching for my infamous study on bacteria reschuffling their DNA deck, I stumbled on these: Evolution is not as random as previously thought - ScienceDaily.url The title is interesting, the article even more. There seems to be a non-randomized process at play in evolution These Species Can Recode Their Own Genetics.url Squid and octopus can edit and direct their own brain genes - New Scientist.url "Unlike other animals, cephalopods – the family that includes octopuses, squid and cuttlefish – do not obey the commands of their DNA to the letter.' Squid and octopus can edit and direct their own brain genes - New Scientist.url

Don't know what to do with this!

Lead on

I would like it if it was evidence that could change your mind, not me or anyone else. since joining the forum, my mind has changed somewhat on things. the physics group in one of the forums changed my mind on qm and the observer effect. They did it with facts, knowledge and math.

There are many reasons for not reading it, just hope its not vindictive

Stuck without a paddle in high water; need to find the study.

Agree with the issue you raised with the above indicated definition Here is another one that introduces concepts of 'unforeseeable" and decision-making into the definition ‘An intelligent cell contains a compartment, which is capable of collecting and integrating a variety of physically different and unforeseeable signals as the basis of problem-solving decisions.’ Also, not necessarily a definition, but a description of what is the main trust of my argument. ‘Intelligence is inherently collective rather than individual. We are collections of cells, with each cell possessing competencies developed from their evolution from unicellular organisms. This forms a multi-scale competency architecture, where each level, from cells to tissues to organs, is solving problems within their unique spaces. Properly recognizing intelligence, which spans different scales of existence, is vital for understanding life’s complexities. This perspective suggests a radical shift in understanding ourselves and the biological world around us.” Michael Levin, developmental biologist – Tufts University Consciousness is what allowed you to think and write this post. It does not come from one’s personal philosophical leanings, but its interpretation is influenced by it. Consciousness has properties; e.g. you lose it in sleep and anesthesia. The simplest definition is awake and aware of one's surroundings. But, no more on it as we are transgressing the main subject matter of this thread. Not sure if I am allowed to do so, but there is a topic on 'mind" somewhere in Science Forums. Apologies for being late in responding. I was trying to locate a study that would have introduced a surprising twist to your borer post. The study implied that under environmental stress, bacteria manipulate their DNA and create circumstances to increase the rate of transcription mistakes in order to find a way of surviving under stress. Highly controversial and that is why I wanted to find the study before posting it, but cannot do so. Also, I know that one study does not make it so and that I might be describing the study incorrectly. The experiment was about removing the usual source of energy of bacteria, replacing it with one that they could not use (or could no longer use; I am not sure; which would make a significant difference on interpretation of findings) and see what happens". The outcome was a successful transition to the new source of energy. The devil is in the details here, and I do not have them. Will continue searching for the study.

Transcending the ego………done! Agree with all that you said except for two things 1- "All of these things involve intelligence', and sometime intelligence requires those things to be able to express itself. 2- 'Okay, super. So what?' Well it makes a hell of a difference. It is a direct assault on the philosophical underpinnings of science. You are moving away from a stricly material world. Its' a big deal. Finally, after reading thousands upon thousands of studies on things, I speculate that there may be a bit more to things than things. I and others find this a very valid field of scientific inquiry. First point - agreed; anaerobic bacteria Life - cells Intelligence - Many definitions; here is one -capable of intergrating physically different signals (mechanical, electrical, chemical, temperature, pH, etc.) before generating a response. First point - CharonY said "Does not matter, selection happens on the individual not on the collective level.' You said "Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next' Hence the confusion. Second point "Oh, yes. +1 - thought you were the moderator, not taking side, but what do I know, I am just an ignorant fool.

Thanks for pointing it out. Obvious that it is about reproduction not only survival Now I am a bit confused on individual vs collective survival. If you are implying intelligent design, I am not. Oxygen allows you to stay alive. Intelligence allows you to survive and reproduce.

When using the word survival, I was talking about collective not individual survival. Interesting As in something else than inheritable traits under positive selection; another selection mechanism. As an explanatory note, I am not questioning the core of evolution theory, but pondering the possible need to reshape its outer shell. Pretentious is my contention that a growing body of evidence on the prevalence of intelligence in nature may be chipping away at the edges. It might be similar to the discovery of horizontal gene transfer and its implication on the theory. Or less we forget Margulis and symbiosis, which took a bit of a bite off of the expression “red in tooth and claw”. Again, only time will tell if a paradigm shift has begun or not.

Nutrition is a powerful health modulator. However, as you indicate, physical activity, sleep, stress management, less sitting also contribute positively to good health. Agree that kale alone will not save you, that you will not die from eating any form of animal once in a while and that a holistic approach is a better avenue than single interventions. On the matter of "so many foods that have both positive and negative aspects" and 'almost every food is a mixed blessing" there are nonetheless better foods and less better foods and there are better diets and less better diets. For example, there is strong evidence that a whole-foods plant-based diet is superior to the Standard American Diet (SAD). As you are very knowledgeable on nutrition, may I propose a reading: "How not to Age' by Dr. Micheal Greger"; plus 13,000 references! You might find the reading at times controversial but oftentimes interesting.

Thank you for your response; it clarifies somewhat things for me. I have a few more questions if I may: 'Survival does not equal passing on genes", but do you not need to be alive (have survived) to pass on your gene pool? "Conversely, there are multiple species where reproduction is coupled to death", again do you not need to get to procreation alive and then die as in the case of sockeye salmons? "Improving chance of survival does not necessarily involve intelligence", but then does this statement imply that it is involved in some cases? Additional questions, again, if I may: Can you tell me what role if any has intelligence played in human evolution? And if there is a role for intelligence, are we talking then of inheritable traits under positive selection? or not? or something more? or something else? I appreciate the time that you are taking here.

What would then be the term to be used for improving one’s chance for survival, as in some form of intelligence improving one’s odds of surviving and passing on his-her genes to the next generation

Ok, still wishing you good health. Let me know if you need more info

Thought you wanted to try out something more-different. Sticking with your consultant's advice is a good idea! Good luck!

I don't think that its a good idea to have 12 eggs a day. For a summary on eggs and cholesterol, please see nutritionfacts link provided above. Other issues with eggs are choline (as mentioned by TheVat) as well as TMAO (trimethylamine oxide). BPH - Agree that casein is not good; contrary to popular thinking though, saw palmetto does not appear to work, but you can try a teaspoon a day of powdered cranberries (no sugar added) and or pumpkin seeds; some data available on their efficacy. If those do not work, then no harm to your health and pocket book. Also, " a 6000 IU dose a day of vitamin D analogs can reduce the prostate volume of BPH patients" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261561420306099#:~:text=It has been reported that,successful treatment for BPH symptoms. UTI - mixed results on the use of cranberry juice, so not sure if it would be helpful. I think that it might be good at prevention, but not when the infection has set in. There is some evidence of a link between UTI and chicken consumption. Also, doctors are not trained in nutrition. Finaly, vegans appear to have less UTI. You can investigate that one if you wish to do so.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-dietary-cholesterol-eggs-raise-blood-cholesterol/ Maybe this can help!

I appreciate your input as well as inputs from Phi for All and CharronY. Only time will tell if we are at the cusp of a paradigm shift or not. If we are, then evolution as we know it will also have to be reviewed. My opinion. In the meantime, I relent, as a discussion on this matter is not meant to be had in the current context.