DNA,and GENETIC information

rantomatic

I would just like to make a few little comments.

I guess I am supposed to be an expert. But I am known to be wrong sometimes or sometimes often. It doesn't really seem to matter if you are an expert in this forum, since no one can actually check if who you really are. And therefore validate your expertise.

That said, it is clear to me (as an 'expert') who has biological expertise here and who doesn't. I don't really have to give names, because they know themselves. For the non-expert it is more difficult to assess who is talking bullshit and who isn't. For them a moderator (someone who oozes authority by nature) could help them make clearer what is more scientific and what isn't. This isn't necessarily done by deleting a thread immediately. A moderator could steer the argument and give some points to the un-initiated.

About Dwayne's hypothesis:
It sounds interesting but most of it would go against any valid concept in modern biology. I'm not going to go through his argument but I would like to point out one interesting thing. Dwayne was trying to emphasize the difference in gene expression between organs, but the most interesting fact about gene expression in organs that mostly they are the same! Some organs have a few genes that are specifically expressed in that particular organ, but others do not even have that. They share the same genes with other organs, but still produce something entirely different.
 
reply

i agree with Jaxom.

I am here primarily to learn. Secondarily, I am here to teach, and I become very frustrated with misleading posts and poorly researched posts.

I am also continually amazed by the intelligence of virtually all the members here. Example, there was one poster, whose expertise is in computer and math stuff, posted an excellent idea concerning evolution and selection that was an original idea of Sewell Wright (he was a great evolutionary biologist). He independently, using stuff he learned in his field, recreated an idea of one of the greatest evolutionary thinkers of the 20th century.

We will miss out on SOOOOO much if we try to limit access to "qualified" people.

Most of my field (biology) is common sense. It's like, when you hear a new idea in biology, you slap yourself on the head and say, "Of course! Why didn't I think of that!"

Another example, my grandfather, who was in his eighties, who barely had a high school education and hadn't been in school since like 1918, was sitting on my back porch looking at the forest behind my mom's house. He turns to me and says, "You know, you see all those trees out there? They grow pretty close together. They must take from one another." My jaw nearly dropped to the floor. He intuitively knew that there was limited resources and that the trees had to compete for the resources.

I have two points from my post.

One, there's a difference between education and intelligence. I would not want to lose out on all the intelligent insights from un-educated people.

Two, ideas and concepts from one field can offer insight to the solution of problems in another field. The more diverse our conceptual input, the greater the synthesis and synergy of the outcome.
 
I got the free CD on DNA/genetics from Roche Genetics. As soon as I get a new computer capable of running it, I'll go through it and use my brother's textbooks as further references. Until then it can wait.
 
Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange
there's a difference between wisdom and knowledge.....hmmm....or, is there.....
Click to expand...

yes...

some people think that they know everything and that this is wisdom

some people are wise and know that they don't know anything


or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top