Sayonara Posted August 1, 2002 Share Posted August 1, 2002 Zarkov, are you trying to argue for the existance of Gaia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 1, 2002 Author Share Posted August 1, 2002 No, Gaia is an unfortunate concept, a similar concept was held by the Stoics, in that the whole of the Universe is / was a living organism. Personally, one's philosophy should be useful, and one should be able to make decisions based upon it and be able to find a meaning to being alive. The only useful subset of the above is to understand, and this is a reasonable interpretation of scientific observations, that all the living organisms on this plane belong to the one creature, and are cells in LIFE, one super organism. From my understanding of LIFE and AI, and DNA it is plainly obvious that a Creator can be then be argued for, from the design angle. DNA is an amazing construction, that is almost the same for all species, the differences in species are expressions only. I expect the whole "seed" structure of DNA can expess from this one molecule all the variations we can elucidate, and then some. The variations only occur (they are often randomly, but specifically expressed to test the suitability of the environment) and are stable once the old environment has been modified to allow the new version to live. In this way a toxic inhospitiable planet, (environment) is slowly modified to allow higher and finer expressions of the DNA to live, and ultimately on this planet, humankind here is the end result. So humankind could be viewed as the flowers of LIFE. Which gives us some idea of our purpose! Stoicism can then lead the way forward for direction and purpose for living :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Oh please, if you're going to sit there and tell me all forms of life have DNA containing the same number of bases or even possible geometric shapes of the strand, then I'll ban you because that's flat out wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 2, 2002 Author Share Posted August 2, 2002 No that is totally contrary to observation, Fafalone!! What I am saying is that the original seeds of LIFE, contain all the information for the whole super-organism. What we see in super cells (species) today is a frozen expression of that DNA specified information. The structure of the DNA is not just simply what is there! The coding is extremely complex, and layered, I like to compare it to a fractal. At each level of the fractal, there is the mechanism for the next expression, plus the expressed fractal (the organism). Fafalone, as we interchange ideas we grow to understand each other, this meaium called language is OK, but it takes time to dispell all the misconceptions so that true dialogue can occur. Please be patient Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 2, 2002 Author Share Posted August 2, 2002 error....meaium = medium sorry, I must learn to proof read more carefully..eyes you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Why would their be not even the slightest clue for a mechanism of expression of the DNA itself, and there be a clear path that says DNA is used to code for proteins, and expression comes from these proteins. The current model of DNA accounts for everything in life, and introns (unexpressed areas) are also explained quite logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 2, 2002 Author Share Posted August 2, 2002 In the DNA double helix, there is what people call "junk codes" these are bases that are not expressed in protein formation. What gets expressed from the DNA code is regulated by other codes. For a single species, we can identify which codes are used, and which are "junk" To go interspecies, it will require a greater understanding of the layering maths of the actual code sequences. We still have a long way to go, this science is still very descriptive, and obvious interpretations are the order of the day at the moment, the not so obvious ones are still to be determined. But what is apparent from it all is that.....the logic of the DNA could not come about by chance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Other codes, within the same strand. They're called operons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 2, 2002 Author Share Posted August 2, 2002 Yes the t-rna hooks into the m-rna which hooks into the operons....but there is much more to a strand than just operons. Best way to look at this is to imagine the sequence from conception up.....there is a logic, not just producing things, but actually putting bit in the right place, ordering the entire sequence , a bit like a conductor to the symphony. It is the logic, the brain behind the conductor, this is also encoded. It is truely amazing ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 You strike me as being a hobbyist rather than a scientist, Zarkov. Although your theories are interesting it seems a bit pointless to argue for them using science that flatly contradicts them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted August 2, 2002 Share Posted August 2, 2002 Wrong. Gene regulation takes place in transcription, not translation. tRNA simply reads, not activates or deactivates. If a operon is not activitated, the gene doesn't even make it on to the mRNA, much less leave the nucleus. Sounds like you need to review basic biology too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 2, 2002 Author Share Posted August 2, 2002 Yes Fafalone, I agree with all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted August 11, 2002 Author Share Posted August 11, 2002 http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,771719,00.html Scientists have discovered an organism believed to be the world's oldest life form, which lives on methane. The coral-forming micro-organisms live in the bottom of the Black Sea at depths where no oxygen and no light is present. The bottom of the Black Sea, was an area previously believed to be without life. Traditional views of early life on Earth centre on plants which convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. They are believed to have begun life between three billion and three-and-a-half billion years ago. The newly discovered organisms are thought to have originated four billion years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 6, 2002 Author Share Posted September 6, 2002 How do harvester ANTS know how to keep mushrooms underground for a food source, and even more weid, how do they know that these mushrooms need leaves etc, for their successful cultivation. The ants actually go out and cut up leaves, bring into the nest especially to nurish the mushrooms. Is this an example of mutational selection, because the most important part of this story is that this ant behavioural logic MUST be passed on genetically. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 6, 2002 Author Share Posted September 6, 2002 "(CNN) -- Animal rescue workers tell stories of mama dogs and cats in the wild "counting noses" of their babies to make sure none of the little ones has wandered off. Other mammals and birds often make lifesaving decisions based on a sort of numerical ability: To fight or to flee based on how many predators they encounter; or to pick an area that has more nuts or bananas, rather than fewer. In recent studies of rhesus monkeys, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) determined that specific neurons in the monkey's brain are "tuned to" certain numbers, and play a major role in the animal's ability to determine quantities. It is a bit different from counting, which involves the unique human capability of language, said Andreas Nieder, who reports his findings in this week's edition of the journal Science. " Clear examples of mentalese, the innate internal language / logic that all conscious life forms are given by the creation, and it is passed on genetically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 6, 2002 Share Posted September 6, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Clear examples of mentalese, the innate internal language / logic that all conscious life forms are given by the creation, and it is passed on genetically By applying the principle of Occam's Razor to this statement we can clearly demonstrate that you are talking out of your arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 6, 2002 Author Share Posted September 6, 2002 Echos, of your mental state, Sayonara ? If that is the level of your intellect, please do not be attracted to pseudoscience, stay in the lofty relms of real science please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 7, 2002 Share Posted September 7, 2002 Don't confuse simple biochemical reactions of a single neuron such as this principle with the kind of counting in a language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 7, 2002 Share Posted September 7, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Echos, of your mental state, Sayonara ? If that is the level of your intellect, please do not be attracted to pseudoscience, stay in the lofty relms of real science please You have no idea how lofty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 7, 2002 Author Share Posted September 7, 2002 Hey Guys, this is an exploration, I do find it extreemly difficult to discuss anything here with all the negative sentiment. If, for instance you wished to openly discuss various aspects of the theory, eg planet / moon / star ejection then OK. All i can point to here is just jamming and trolling by some posters, with absolutely nothing to offer other than "you are wrong". Well if past scientists who were greeted with this when they opened their mouths, actually listened to this derision, science would never have gone ahead. OK if you guys know everthing there is to know, then how about sharing it, or is this as I suspect a one way street!! Well good luck in your persuit of knowledge, and as they say, thanks for all the fish! :( really poor attitude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted September 7, 2002 Share Posted September 7, 2002 What you talk about is not science. Your observations are not even accurate to begin with. You do not follow the scienfitic method. You are NOT a scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov Hey Guys, this is an exploration, I do find it extreemly difficult to discuss anything here with all the negative sentiment. Then you might try to answer our questions wherever possible, instead of immediately changing tack and talking about something completely different. You may also consider approaching your explanations in a systematic fashion that builds torwards your postulate, by describing the evidence from first principles and working upwards. This can be easily achieved through the employment of compound sentences - the fulcrum of any successful language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted September 8, 2002 Share Posted September 8, 2002 Thank you Sayonara. Scientific ideas are supposed to be flexible arguments backed by logic and math and hopefully by repeatable experimental results. We are not discussing religion which is "I feel" or "it was written long ago" or "your going to hell if you don't accept this". Even psuedoscience is a forum for questions and answers. Since were in the psuedoscience section, my own view of Darwin is he got it correct to the point similiar to a man discovering fire spreads. We still need to discover the mechanism of the fire. Previously not knowing fire spreads makes this discovery a great advancement towards future discoveries. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 8, 2002 Author Share Posted September 8, 2002 Sorry guys, that last post of mine would have been in the Spin Gravity thread, by Fafalone has closed it, with my consent. I may talk to you all later, but at present I am tired of this thread jamming, and continual trolling :( :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarkov Posted September 8, 2002 Author Share Posted September 8, 2002 I must learn to proof read!!!!!! Sorry guys, that last post of mine would have been in the Spin Gravity thread, BUT Fafalone has closed it, WITHOUT my consent. I may talk to you all later, but at present I am tired of this thread jamming, and continual trolling 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