ABsolutely not, I dont understand why you would even think such a thing as you can personally manipulate your genes?Theoryofrelativity said:
Why does the evolutionary process exist?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
imaplanck. said:
how are the genes able to adapt to the enviornment? The information is received by the senses presumably and sent to them.........how is this info rec'd, translated and sent to the genes- via the brain. Well thinking is a brain activity, so why not? Why is it impossible for me to tell my brain to dictate to my genes? To fool my genes into a genetic change? I could simulate an evironment perhaps to encourage an anicent genetic trait to resurface to 're evolve'.
Evolution takes a while because of quality of info input, what if I super surged that input. What if I just tell my genes not to 'age' me.
Last edited:
Through 1000s of generations of survival versus non-survival of organisms the fittests organisms and thus fittests genes prevail.Theoryofrelativity said:
Most certainly
. I thought you had a reasonable understanding of evolution, sorry but I have been grossely mistaken....
.........Actually are you just having a laugh here?
No no no.
imaplanck. said:
are you forgetting epigenetics?
imaplanck. said:
yes yes yes, I am going to 'tell' my gnes to focus on a particular region, I shall inform you (or better still post pics) of any visible results!
Now I know you are taking the piss.imaplanck. said:
only partially, that dude I quoted previously seems to think it's possible...re 'healing' self etc.
meanwhile, epigenetics?
Last edited:
TheoryOfRelativity:
"a piano player who has never palyed a piano?"
Consider that dexterity and an ear for tuning preceded the piano, yet found its greatest expression in such. This is a classical theme of adaptation.
"My thought a while back was that genes hold the memory of early genetic forms, thus the fact the gene can then replicate the tree is no mystery, the information regarding the tree (an earlier life form) is there in the insects genes."
The problem with this is that most creatures are extremely unrelated. The tree branches out in such a way, as to make common ancestry to be found only in a long-dead animal, and none of its progenitors. Moreover, this was once considered a possibility, and even thought to manifest in the development of embryos, but it has since been shown not to be so. One has to take into consideration whilst anyone gene may be present in another creature, many genes are unique to that creature alone, and ontop of that, are arranged in such a way as not to permit the manifestation of another creature's characteristics.
"The question is why not all? Why do we adapt in different ways in same environment?""
This is simple. Most enviroments admit of a variety of adaptations which allow for finding of several distinct niches. For instance, in one tree, you have creatures which live at the very top, amidst the leaves, whereas others are burrowed down deep into the root structure. The same tree, markedly different adaptations. One must also recognzie the fact that it is utterly random. That is to say, that there is no conscious drive to adaptation present, and in fact, many creatures fail to adapt as they simply do not have the genetic manifestation of the traits necessary for such. And most adaptations are not as perfect as we'd like to think. They simply work and work well enough to become a reproductive benefit.
"a piano player who has never palyed a piano?"
Consider that dexterity and an ear for tuning preceded the piano, yet found its greatest expression in such. This is a classical theme of adaptation.
"My thought a while back was that genes hold the memory of early genetic forms, thus the fact the gene can then replicate the tree is no mystery, the information regarding the tree (an earlier life form) is there in the insects genes."
The problem with this is that most creatures are extremely unrelated. The tree branches out in such a way, as to make common ancestry to be found only in a long-dead animal, and none of its progenitors. Moreover, this was once considered a possibility, and even thought to manifest in the development of embryos, but it has since been shown not to be so. One has to take into consideration whilst anyone gene may be present in another creature, many genes are unique to that creature alone, and ontop of that, are arranged in such a way as not to permit the manifestation of another creature's characteristics.
"The question is why not all? Why do we adapt in different ways in same environment?""
This is simple. Most enviroments admit of a variety of adaptations which allow for finding of several distinct niches. For instance, in one tree, you have creatures which live at the very top, amidst the leaves, whereas others are burrowed down deep into the root structure. The same tree, markedly different adaptations. One must also recognzie the fact that it is utterly random. That is to say, that there is no conscious drive to adaptation present, and in fact, many creatures fail to adapt as they simply do not have the genetic manifestation of the traits necessary for such. And most adaptations are not as perfect as we'd like to think. They simply work and work well enough to become a reproductive benefit.
Prince_James said:
what do you think of epigenetics?
TheoryofRelativity:
Epigenetics is buitl into the "plasticity" present in the cellular types of multicellular animals. This is an example where enviromental factors and bio-chemical factors in the body can impact the development of a cell so it goes along another valid line and then, once fixed, begins to develop its offspring in such and such a way. However, it is sharply limited cross generationally. For true, long-term change, is only enacted by mutation of the genes, which facillitate the phenotypes.
Epigenetics is buitl into the "plasticity" present in the cellular types of multicellular animals. This is an example where enviromental factors and bio-chemical factors in the body can impact the development of a cell so it goes along another valid line and then, once fixed, begins to develop its offspring in such and such a way. However, it is sharply limited cross generationally. For true, long-term change, is only enacted by mutation of the genes, which facillitate the phenotypes.
Oh Tor you are so cute but leave the thinking to the big boys.
imaplanck. said:Oh Tor you are so cute but leave the thinking to the big boys.
shut ya face you!
I am not cute, I am a bad ass muther fucka
so, this space creature, which has been gentically variating and evolving for bazillions of yrs, why is it not possible again? No answers forthcoming, interestingggggggg :bugeye:
leopold99 said:
who? the space creature?
subject 'space creature' I may need to start a new thread
You know the bigbang itself is only 13x10^9 years old yeah?Theoryofrelativity said:
Satyr said:
Consider the facts.
Childbirth is painful and parenting is then a chore, an unusually extreme commitment, and parents keen to reap an immediate reward for it are not reputed to thus achieve the best effect.
--- Ron.
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_newplanet2_050623.html
"Setting SETI's Sights II: Abodes for Life?
By Douglas Vakoch
SETI Institute
posted: 23 June 2005
06:43 am ET
With the latest discovery of a "Super-Earth" around a dim, red star 15 light years from Earth, SETI scientists have been pondering the implications for their search for intelligence on other worlds. "This planet answers an ancient question," said Geoffrey Marcy, professor of astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, and leader of the team that discovered the planet, which is seven to eight times the mass of Earth. "Over 2,000 years ago, the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Epicurus argued about whether there were other Earth-like planets. Now, for the first time, we have evidence for a rocky planet around a normal star." Team member Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington emphasized the similarity between this most recently detected planet, located around an M star called Gliese 876, and our own world. "This is the smallest extrasolar planet yet detected and the first of a new class of rocky terrestrial planets," he explained. "It's like Earth's bigger cousin."
"Setting SETI's Sights II: Abodes for Life?
By Douglas Vakoch
SETI Institute
posted: 23 June 2005
06:43 am ET
With the latest discovery of a "Super-Earth" around a dim, red star 15 light years from Earth, SETI scientists have been pondering the implications for their search for intelligence on other worlds. "This planet answers an ancient question," said Geoffrey Marcy, professor of astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, and leader of the team that discovered the planet, which is seven to eight times the mass of Earth. "Over 2,000 years ago, the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Epicurus argued about whether there were other Earth-like planets. Now, for the first time, we have evidence for a rocky planet around a normal star." Team member Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington emphasized the similarity between this most recently detected planet, located around an M star called Gliese 876, and our own world. "This is the smallest extrasolar planet yet detected and the first of a new class of rocky terrestrial planets," he explained. "It's like Earth's bigger cousin."
Haven't been following along, so perhaps you already know this.
The term is panspermia. Might aid your search.
Also, note, that the idea doesn't necessitate that life originated outside of earth. Merely that the organic precursors did.
The term is panspermia. Might aid your search.
Also, note, that the idea doesn't necessitate that life originated outside of earth. Merely that the organic precursors did.
You might think so, but no. The key is that a parent will far more readily sacrifice for their own child over a more distant relation. Seems obvious, but a parent's sacrifice is a good way to help ensure his/her/its 50% genetic contribution to the future. A parent (in the wild) in good reproductive health and with more than one offspring is even less predisposed to sacrifice.Satyr said:
"An organism is a genes way of getting itself propagated into the next eneration."
- Paraphrase of some genitic type dude.