Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Would Fine-tuning Our Dna Make Us Gods?

fundamental number constant DNA

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 caviar4thought

caviar4thought

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 03:13 PM

Life, as we know it, started very primitively in a fine-tuned universe and since then it kept evolving (at an annoyingly slow pace). Would you think that FiT-DNA will speed things up?



#2 ErlyRisa

ErlyRisa

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts

Posted 31 August 2014 - 08:36 PM

It's going to happen anyway...Doesn't mean we have to like it though. It's that Waterworld movie..once you have Gills : Who is going to build boats.



#3 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 04:10 AM

It's going to happen anyway...Doesn't mean we have to like it though. It's that Waterworld movie..once you have Gills : Who is going to build boats.

Isn't that equivalent to saying, once you have legs, who is going to make motor cars?



#4 ErlyRisa

ErlyRisa

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 07:06 AM

Isn't that equivalent to saying, once you have legs, who is going to make motor cars?

 

or, once we invent the computer...why would we need jobs?

 

or better yet, if I can create intelligence that is beyond my comprehension...I cease to have purpose.

 

, how about: Who cares about eye protection, when I usually get a new pair of eyes dependent on fashion.


Edited by ErlyRisa, 02 September 2014 - 07:09 AM.


#5 caviar4thought

caviar4thought

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 02 September 2014 - 10:04 AM

 

 

or better yet, if I can create intelligence that is beyond my comprehension...I cease to have purpose.

 

 

Not quite so. Think of a bright (for his age) 10-year-old lil' Johnny chatting with a brilliant PhD, Mike. The fact that  the PhD's 'intelligence is beyond the kid's comprehension' will actually give Johnny a purpose: "when I grow up I want to be like Mike or smarter." Smart people are known to always appreciate a hell of a challenge ..  



#6 ErlyRisa

ErlyRisa

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts

Posted 09 September 2014 - 06:54 AM

Not quite so. Think of a bright (for his age) 10-year-old lil' Johnny chatting with a brilliant PhD, Mike. The fact that  the PhD's 'intelligence is beyond the kid's comprehension' will actually give Johnny a purpose: "when I grow up I want to be like Mike or smarter." Smart people are known to always appreciate a hell of a challenge ..  

ah, but you forgot log.



#7 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3058 posts

Posted 10 September 2014 - 07:37 AM

The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. For example, over 98% of the human genome is noncoding DNA,[2] while only about 2% of a typical bacterial genome is noncoding DNA.

 

In humans, only about 2% of the DNA is coded to make the protein which define our features. The other 98% of the DNA, often called junk DNA, can be understood as contextual DNA which creates the interactive or 3-D and 4-D context for the 2%.

 

For example, I have a friend who was allergic to a wide range of things as a child, but as an adult all its allergies went away. His 2% coding DNA did not change. What changed was the context of his 2%, in terms of how these gene relate to each other and the other 98% of the genes. There was a change in space and time in terms of how his body interacts with the environment. 

 

We can insert DNA, based on the type of protein it will make, to get blue eyes children. But this may change the context with respect to other genes to create secondary effects. Until science knows how to address the contextual containers of the 98%, one needs to be careful since what one expects to get will not always work out that way. 

 

As a visual analogy, say you start with a box of toys; 2% coding genes. You go into a room with selfing and containers; 98%, and are asked to organize the toys to make it easy for you to play with them. Based on how you arrange the toys will provide a context for how you see yourself playing with the toys. The toys in the top selves in the back containers are hard to get and may rarely be played with. The ones at eye level are used all the time. 

 

Say we add a new toy, like blue eyes. Because it is featured we will want to add it in an easy to reach self near the front so we can use it all the time. This will displace another toy in that preferred spot. We may not wish to rearrange all the selfing to keep all in the same context. It may be  easier to swap one toy's location for the new and place the old in an unused location, where it is not used the same because it become out of sight and out of mind. 

 

A bacteria only has 2% context making it more fixed in terms of context. The result is experiments on bacteria will not reflect the context level found in humans.


Edited by HydrogenBond, 10 September 2014 - 07:42 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: fundamental number, constant, DNA