To just give an anology: giving supernatural power to DNA (its goal is its own survival) seems similar as ascribing divine power to statues. Both are non-living things in themselves, but have full control over life and death and human interaction.
This is perhaps a different discussion, but DNA are just merely a few molecules: they are not the basis of everything that comes after them. The classic view of DNA → RNA → protein → bodily function is shown not to be true. There is a phenomenon called epigenetics, DNA and how and when it works is not a program that is just played, it is a whole interaction process between environment, cell-cell interaction, psychological influence and DNA.
Furthermore, I’ve never heard of humans being able to create bacteria from dead DNA, nor could i find it: can u give me a reference?
it was an ironical remark, and in no way was it intented to point out my stance on this view.
to survive almost anything? I wouldn’t bet on it. I don’t think humans will be able to survive the explosion of the sun. Nor -from a religious point of view- will humans be able to survive judgement day.
furthermore, irrespective of this, the fact that humans will survive a lot of circumstances because they themselves can create superhumans, is that then due to evolution (=random mutations), or human interaction with their own genome and no evolution comes into play?
this is actually a total non-argument. If scientist are paranoid persons, why did they develop the evolution theory in the first place. If anything, it reduces humans to nothing more than just dimwits following an unknown path already set out for them.
Furthermore, if the IQ test was biased towards resulting in a normal distribution, why then not a normal distribution on the down side? And suppose the test is flawed, even in ur vicinity you’ll find more persons that are impaired than are actually very outstanding on the positive side. Despite that, as I put forward, a single mutation can have various effects: not all effects need be negative. Conceptually -certainly from an evolutionary point of view- one mutation can have both good and bad effects. So how come from all the mutations (>50) I know of, I can only think of one that possible also produces a good effect along with its numerous negative effects (the hemoglobin mutation that protects against malaria, but has a dozen more severe negative effects).
to survive almost anything? I wouldn't bet on it. I don't think humans will be able to survive the explosion of the sun. Nor -from a religious point of view- will humans be able to survive judgement day.
furthermore, irrespective of this, the fact that humans will survive a lot of circumstances because they themselves can create superhumans, is that then due to evolution (=random mutations), or human interaction with their own genome and no evolution comes into play?
[/QUOTE]
i don't think human will survive their own pride! but i think that the creatures they will create with biotechnology will be more able to survive in hostile extraterrestrial environement, and that is why i think humans are playing the evolution game...in the end earth life in the form we know today, ie cells duplicating themselves...will keep on existing and flourishing and expanding in the universe!
why mammals? don’t you think mammal ages was cenozoic?? as it is over due to humans…i bet next era won’t be dominated by mammals…evolution is just ending their golden age now…
I was hoping you would bring this argument up. Two arguments against this:
a bacteria is a total different kind of species. A human is considered further evolved and thus superior to a bacteria. If then a bacteria can produce the mutation to survive against humans, how come other further-than-bacteria-evolved species (like the tiger, whale, chimps, elephants) can’t produce the mutation that will protect them against humans?
a bacteria replicates very fast and therefore accumulates mutation very quickly; however, not matter how much a bacteria will replicate it will still remain the same bacteria: e.g. a streptococcus will always (even after 10 years of replication) remain a streptococcus, I’ve never heard that it suddenly mutated so fast and quickly that it now had become a tuberculosis bacterium
so ur saying that the humans caused the downfall of the mammalian era. So will humans themselves die soon too? After all, they are mammals as well from an evolutionary point of view…but just now u were saying humans could survive any situation.
So again, are or are not humans part of the evolutionary process?
i agree that bacterria are less evolved but if they are the best mean to spread earth life after humans are all dead, why not?
being the best to spread life is the most important since the beginning of life…and that is what evolution was about…no one can guess what is the tiny creature that will take mammal place in the next era…
where???
I said that human won’t survive their own pride!!
sorry it was not clear that the creatures i think humans will create are not “superhumans” but maybe bacteria of a new kind or GMO plants…or a pool of new GMO species ranging from bacteria to animals…
And humans have the power, and the will, to create superior creatures who will survive almost anything, thus ensuring DNA surviva
this can mean that those superior creatures are some form of humans themselves, then it supports my claim,
or it means:
the superior creatures might be some special kind of bacterium. But this won’t make sense; why would humans want to help a totally different species without having any advantage themselves in their own survival? Why would humans help bacterium if they themselves will get extinct. It is against the tenets of evolution to help another species without gaining own advantage…
isn’t it strange: bacteria have been around for millions (!!!) of years and in the end they are the best suited to continue surviving. What use did evolution have to evolve bacteria all the way to humans only to find out that bacteria are the best mode of survival for DNA. That is really a horrible error of judgement by evolution. Is it such a stupid process???
why not? I am not the poud type of people, I don’t get offended by richer, more succcesfulll people, i don’t get offended by being a descendant of apes, and I see no harm in accepting that bacteria are best suited to resist extrem environments!
yes, you are not. I agree, but what about evolution: I mean evolution for sure knows that bacteria were best suited for most extreme of environments. And evolution could have figured it out very soon after it evolved the first few species after bacteria. Why then did it continue. If bacteria were so superior, any mutation resulting in non-bacteria would be inferior and that species must have become extinct!
it is depending on the definition of** own!**
i think you’ll agree that own means at least helping ones offspring to ensure one descendance…maybe you know humans are very successfull too because they are also helping others offspring to survive (interest of human specie)…then why not accepting that evolution would lead human to help better suited creatures to survive when they themselves reach the point of exctinction?? as i said earlier the most important so far has been life perenity, not specie perennity.
no, this is wrong. The goal of evolution is not specie perennity, nor life perenity. The goal of evolution is perenity of a given set of DNA molecules. And not a single set would want another unrelated set to survive further that itself.(remember Dawkins calls it ‘the selfish gene’ ;))
i am clueless about what darwin said to be honest, i don’t believe one old guy over another old guy I just look around me to try to understand things, and my understanding of lifeand evolution of life is what i exposed to you…and i disagree on “given set of DNA”, and maintain my point.
if i had to defend the evolutionary theory i would argue that i won't make my DNA set live because even if i had children, they would each bear only half of my DNA set...then i assume set of DNA to be a fizzier concept, set of what? elements that make up the chores genes of one specie?...how to define it? where to draw the border...I am not keen on making discriminations...
