Zarkov Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Hi, I am new to here, I have been active on the Australian ABC's Self Serve Science Forum. Dawinian evolution is incorrect. The DNA code has the ability to express the whole of LIFE's (all living organisms are but ONE superorganism) different types of super cells (species). The process that allows this to occur is called symbiogenisis. There is an unfolding developmentalism, that is environment dependant. One super cell modifies (detoxifies) the environment enabling a finer DNA rendition that is expressable to exist. In this way LIFE has infected a planet such as Venus and modified it's environment into such as is found on Earth. Life manufactured water and free oxygen. This organism, LIFE, has it's own life cycle. I would welcome critism of this point of view! Zarkov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Hey! Welcome to the boards. Thats quite an interesting theory. I've never heard it before. Do you have any suggested readings so I can see what the deal is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 The major issues I see with this are as follows: 1) Water was present before life. 2) Modifying the environment for a better DNA sequence to be expressed- this sounds like a mechanism of action for Darwinian Evolution rather than a contradiction of it. 3) It is contended that humans have stopped evolving; and with current social trends it's my opinion we're heading backwards in evolution. With the basic drive towards survival, why would a single organism have its parts doing this? 4) Not all DNA contains all of life; especially the very small size of some plastids. I'd like to read more on this topic, as I too feel there is more to life than just all of its parts. Could you recomend any good books or sites on this subject? Thanks, fafalone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 That theory is interesting, but how does this DNA of LIFE manifest itself then reproduce itself? The existence of water before organisms cannot be always be held true. Can't an organism exist before water and then "modify" it's environment for it's survival? As to what Zarkov is saying about rendering the environment and then producing a materials such as water. Also, I'm not all that familiar with Darwin's revolution theory, learnt it probably and forgot it. That paragraph is to the point, but a bit vague. There are many issues and questions that can be branched from that topic. I'd like to read more on it also. -one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 10, 2002 Author Share Posted July 10, 2002 1) Water was present before life. No LIFE made water, contrary to popular belief. Water is too reactive to remain free. And so is oxygen, they are our life blood and our lungs ! 2) Modifying the environment for a better DNA sequence to be expressed- this sounds like a mechanism of action for Darwinian Evolution rather than a contradiction of it. Each expression of the DNA modifies (detoxifies) it's environment (world wide) and thus allows the DNA expression of the next link up the chain. In this way a planet such as Venus can be infected and slowly modified to become an Earth. 3) It is contended that humans have stopped evolving; and with current social trends it's my opinion we're heading backwards in evolution. With the basic drive towards survival, why would a single organism have its parts doing this? We are heading backwards into the toxic wastelands, our atmosphere is thinning and we are moving out from the Sun. LIFE has it's own agenda, grow and reproduce, we can be likened to flowers on a plant. This LIFE can be perennial or annual, I suspect we will be annual this time around! 4) Not all DNA contains all of life; especially the very small size of some plastids. DNA code is a fractal like structure, which can be expressed on many levels. The whole blue print is thus present in the simplest of organisms. They have the mechanism, and the coding to create the next generation etc. I'd like to read more on this topic, as I too feel there is more to life than just all of its parts. Could you recomend any good books or sites on this subject? This is a product of my research, all I can suggest is readings on interrelationships of different supercells, and the fact that most of our DNA is the same as other supercells. I will answer any questions I can, but if you do your own reviews I would like to be aware of your findings. Cheers, I will type you again > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 The most primitive biochemical pathways of the most ancient organisms require water for energy production. Water has an extremely small dissociation constant, which makes it very stable. Most organic molecules do not even react with water; and if they did, then you couldn't define water as our "life blood." The first organisms on this planet did not develop in the presence of oxygen; as oxygen is corrosive. Organisms tolerant of oxygen developed later. The way in which we are "modifying" our environment is not conducive to our form of life. We're constantly adding toxins. We have not moved on to other planets yet. Venus is too close to the sun to support carbon based life. Period. The scale at which Earth's orbit is deteriorating is not even close to the same time frame as we're making the planet unlivable. In fact, the sun will probably burn out before our orbit takes us out of its habitable zone. The DNA of some things is only a few kbp, while ours is many mbps. DNA structure of the former couldn't produce near as many combinations, including fractal patterns. There has been no evidence of anything reading DNA actual structure and not just nucleotides. Most DNA is leftovers, such as the sequence for gills. It's not an advantage to leave it out, so it stays. Furthermore, some viruses don't even have DNA, just RNA. And also, then why would there be any interspecific variance between DNA? It would be more logical to just have a different recognition set for introns, which is how which DNA is expressed has been proven to operate. Can you support your position using evidence and not just philosophy? What evidence is there life predated water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 11, 2002 Author Share Posted July 11, 2002 "Organisms tolerant of oxygen developed later." Obviously, a pre Earth, like Venus has no water or oxygen. The seeds of LIFE could only gain a foothold in the upper atmospher on dust particles, feeding off sulphuric acid and carbon dioxide, and ammonia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 14, 2002 Author Share Posted July 14, 2002 The maths used by LIFE is far more powerful than the aspects of mathematics we employ, and far more powerful than fractal maths in layering data upon data. The very existence of this structure verifies a Creator, (god like) but not in any way personal, and certainly not human or possessing human emotions like, love, careing etc> LIFE has it's own agenda, that does not necessarily include human beings. We have two options, the default for LIFE here, an annual option, or a choice option, the perennial option! STOIC philosophy You choose > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dropbear Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 The "Zarkov" user is a troll. He has been spewing this kind of rubbish on the Australian ABC Science forums now for some time, and refuses to back up any of this pseudo science with the slighest bit of evidence. Trolls of this kind are best ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Ok you're looking at this the wrong way. The patterns exhibited by life (do you even know the term for this? i do.) have been described with mathematical equations. We can look at systems at the particle level and perfectly describe motion. We cannot perfectly predict all of the interactions on a large object, YET. It's just a matter of starting at the subatomic level and working up. Snowflakes, someone did a rather large study analyzing formations, and explained it quite well. I suggest finding and reading the study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 14, 2002 Author Share Posted July 14, 2002 The formulae is not a fractal formula, it is far more powerfull and is expressable, like a fractal, at various levels. I may start for instance with 10 primes, and from these 10 the whole spectrum of LIFE can be expressed. At any successful level, the code is fully expressed, but the remainder is for next level up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Please clarify. Mathematics can describe natural occurences, and higher levels happen as a result of the lower levels, starting with the smallest units of matter and working up to the universe as a whole. The lower levels are not driven by the higher levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 14, 2002 Author Share Posted July 14, 2002 Mr Nerd, I am discussing what I wish to discuss. The mathematics I use is off limits. This discussion is about all the is alive being ONE super organism, and how it all came about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 I think someone needs to stop playing Parasite Eve and doing drugs at the same time... Sorry for breaking up this argument but here's what I want to know: Why is your math off limits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 15, 2002 Author Share Posted July 15, 2002 My maths is off limits, because I ues it for AI purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 16, 2002 Share Posted July 16, 2002 The universe seems to be structured to allow life and sentience to evolve like in a zoos nursery. Our life is that we have memory storage and logic gates that operate at incredible speed and synchronicity. We can duplicate these processes with so many materials like silicon, molecules, electrons and quantum effects. We don't need to change an enviroment to evolve. It helped in our case but some life forms will just have to use what they have and by stress be forced to evolve. It's a fascinating observation that free O2 is a product of earlier life but it is not the sole reason we are here. Still it is fun to breath and to think, to imagine. Just for thought. Just aman:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 17, 2002 Author Share Posted July 17, 2002 Aman, I take it then that you think Earth's environment has been the way it is now since time began. Higher life forms require an environment such as we have now. Earth's environment a long time ago, was much the same as Venus's environment as it is now, sulphuric acid clouds/rain, 90X earth's ATP, high levels of toxic gasses, high temperature etc. For LIFE to grow in an environment such as this it has to start out basic, and slowly modify the environment, bringing new expressed life forms into being to continue modifying the environment, until we end up with what we have now, a place where the highest life forms can exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Planets change on their own. Life adapts to these changes. 90x the ATP? I assume you're referring to adenosine triphosphate, a complex energy molecule not synthesized by the earliest forms of life, nor does it occur outside of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 18, 2002 Author Share Posted July 18, 2002 No, I was talking of atmospheric pressure of Venus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest superstring00 Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 I am wondering what elements of a life form are used to classify it as "higher"? It sounds as though the creatures on earth now are "higher" why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 18, 2002 Author Share Posted July 18, 2002 SS00, what we classify as higher are those that do not tolerate inorganic chemicals, well. Humans get their nutrients from other life forms. These life forms, prepare the minerals and biochemicals that are suitable for us. These organisms in turn get their sources from organisms that exist closer to the inorganic level. The llower you go down the closer the organism is to eating rocks, and acquiring their energy either from the sun, or directly from chemical inorganic reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 I had an argument for the existance of many other different forms of life. It is based on our knowledge that we can duplicate the functions of the human mind with all sorts of materials in the lab. We can make logic circuits work where DNA would be destroyed and also memory circuits. We are like a slice on a visible spectrum of life potentials. It only needs time and circumstance and life has the potential to evolve. In all sorts of enviroments. I don't think it is any master DNA but something else that drives the universe to foster sentience. Just my opinion. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 I don't think it is any master DNA but something else that drives the universe to foster sentience. Just my opinion.Just aman Just out of curiosity what do you think drives it to sentience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 18, 2002 Share Posted July 18, 2002 I'm arguing with logic, commen sense and personal experience which are all subjective so this is only food for thought. A universe without sentience is absolutely empty. It starts on its path and rocks hit rocks and suns explode and it either goes on like this or it is over. All natural laws followed you could almost calculate it's end from crunching the data of its beginning. If I plant two flowers on a planet the universe is changed. It is no longer predictable. The flowers might die and then it is back to empty, but if they live and populate the planet, there will always be the question as to what is happening on this planet but it is still simple. Now, if sentience evolves the universe's fate itself becomes a question. We evolved brains which are no more than input, process, memory, and output, but it seems sentience is more than a sum of the whole. I feel our minds have a connection with the microcosom beyond quantum physics and we didn't get it by luck. The universe needs us to experience it or it never existed. Life to me seems luck but sentience might have been designed and I can't believe that we are the only ones in the universe to reach this level we're at now. Also I expect us to develop silicon sentience with AI and if we can do it here, I'll bet there is an enviroment somewhere it could happen on its own. just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted July 18, 2002 Author Share Posted July 18, 2002 There is a quote, I do not have the source (as usual) that goes like Hey God we don't need you any more we have knowledge on how to make life! OK says God, lets have a test!! Go for it you make life! So the scientist bends down and grabs a hunk of dirt! God cries foul, you go get your own dirt! The same goes for flowers! >") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now