3 ms·

> DNA that is not needed will wither away. You are 100% wrong about this. DNA that is not needed does not "wither" away. If it's benign, it'll most likely stic

> DNA that is not needed will wither away. You are 100% wrong about this. DNA that is not needed does not "wither" away. If it's benign, it'll most likely stick around. > Overloaded DNA will collapse. This sentence doesn't make any sense. How do you "overload" DNA? What does "collapsing" look like? > Either way, too much complexity breaks. What is "complexity"? Can you measure it? How much is too much? What "breaks", and how? > You may call it "Survival of the fittest" implying chaos theory What does chaos theory (roughly, the idea that small changes in initial conditions have dramatic effects) have to do with anything we're discussing? > but I call it harmonious morphology... Please define "harmonious" and describe how to measure it. > ...implying benign force I suspect you started with benign force and worked your way backwards, ignoring any inconvenient evidence.

nashashmi 12y ago
> You are 100% wrong about this. DNA that is not needed does not "wither" away. If it's benign, it'll most likely stick around. Why would it stick around if it is not needed? Why wouldn't it be free to morph if it did not matter? Why wouldn't it change if it did not affect the being? Evidence exists that DNA changes due to stresses in environments, so hereditary (e.g. the parent has it, so the child must) is not sufficient to explain why garbage DNA is still transferring over generations later. > This sentence doesn't make any sense. How do you "overload" DNA? What does "collapsing" look like? > What is "complexity"? If a creation of an object relies solely on DNA, then there must be some sort of ignore protocol built into the creation factory for the DNA part that is meaningless. Overloaded DNA has excessive meaningless data. An enormous amount of complexity would be required within the creation factory to handle this overload. > Chaos theory ... The idea that random changes occur and the only changes that survive are the ones that can still adapt to their environment despite or in spite of the change. > Please define "harmonious? Harmonious would mean the very stable and smooth transitions of creatures to change from one to another without there being some sort of "noise" e.g. rapid fluctuations in genes. If creatures can transition uniformly to another creature, why not several different creatures across several different environments (sort of like man-made innovations in isolated environments). Failures and successes would both appear on graphs. > how to measure harmonious? how to measure complexity? Measuring harmonious is akin to measuring cold energy. You cannot measure something that does not exist, but instead you measure it by the lack of its opposite. (you measure cold by the lack of heat). Complexity is only apparent when things break. If you don't see things breaking, you cannot witness complexity. > you started with benign force and worked your way backwards, ignoring any inconvenient evidence. Actually, its the other way around. A researcher must constantly battle the concept of unknown/benign/hidden/dark energy/force/matter to figure out why things work the way they do. A researcher is always digging, always denying, the concept of an unknown force, in finality to achieve the phrase "That's how!" I call it peace at a certain point. But for a person with an agenda, the inconvenient fact may be that there is an unknown force. Sometimes, these things are cloaked as laws of physics, that some events other than this event just cannot happen. Other times, they are called theories, until they are met with an enigma, where then it is broken.
- taco_emoji 12y ago
  Your thinking on this matter is incredibly messy and not guided by rigorous investigation of the facts. > Why would it stick around if it is not needed? WHY WOULDN'T IT??? It's not expensive to carry junk DNA around - it just sits there, not doing anything, not creating proteins, not affecting anything. You're proposing that there's some sort of janitor going through and cleaning up the nonsense and it's just not true. If there is such a mechanism, point to it. Name it. Tell me what it is. Tell me what the evidence of it is. Just link to a wiki page! I think the problem is that you're stuck on thinking about DNA as procedural program code instead of on its own terms, how it actually operates. I'll try to explain a few things, in a last ditch attempt to appeal to your intellect: DNA gets transcribed to mRNA based on START and STOP codons (codons being sequences of three bases). Then the codons in-between START and STOP on the mRNA strand get translated into amino acid chains, also known as proteins. The "ignore protocol", such as it is, is then twofold: 1) if a sequence doesn't occur between START and STOP, it's highly unlikely to ever get transcribed into mRNA, and 2) if an mRNA contains nonsense codons, or its number of base pairs is not divisible by three, then the resulting protein is most likely benign, or at least not harmful enough to prevent the organism from producing offspring and therefore propagating the harmful sequence. (If it is harmful enough to affect reproductive viability, then it doesn't tend to stick around very long.) Not all DNA does anything. Plenty of it is just hanging on for the ride, not harming anyone, and so not selected against by natural selection. > I call it peace at a certain point. I call it giving up the search. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you give up trying to understand.

nashashmi 12y ago

> You are 100% wrong about this. DNA that is not needed does not "wither" away. If it's benign, it'll most likely stick around. Why would it stick around if it is not needed? Why wouldn't it be free to morph if it did not matter? Why wouldn't it change if it did not affect the being? Evidence exists that DNA changes due to stresses in environments, so hereditary (e.g. the parent has it, so the child must) is not sufficient to explain why garbage DNA is still transferring over generations later. > This sentence doesn't make any sense. How do you "overload" DNA? What does "collapsing" look like? > What is "complexity"? If a creation of an object relies solely on DNA, then there must be some sort of ignore protocol built into the creation factory for the DNA part that is meaningless. Overloaded DNA has excessive meaningless data. An enormous amount of complexity would be required within the creation factory to handle this overload. > Chaos theory ... The idea that random changes occur and the only changes that survive are the ones that can still adapt to their environment despite or in spite of the change. > Please define "harmonious? Harmonious would mean the very stable and smooth transitions of creatures to change from one to another without there being some sort of "noise" e.g. rapid fluctuations in genes. If creatures can transition uniformly to another creature, why not several different creatures across several different environments (sort of like man-made innovations in isolated environments). Failures and successes would both appear on graphs. > how to measure harmonious? how to measure complexity? Measuring harmonious is akin to measuring cold energy. You cannot measure something that does not exist, but instead you measure it by the lack of its opposite. (you measure cold by the lack of heat). Complexity is only apparent when things break. If you don't see things breaking, you cannot witness complexity. > you started with benign force and worked your way backwards, ignoring any inconvenient evidence. Actually, its the other way around. A researcher must constantly battle the concept of unknown/benign/hidden/dark energy/force/matter to figure out why things work the way they do. A researcher is always digging, always denying, the concept of an unknown force, in finality to achieve the phrase "That's how!" I call it peace at a certain point. But for a person with an agenda, the inconvenient fact may be that there is an unknown force. Sometimes, these things are cloaked as laws of physics, that some events other than this event just cannot happen. Other times, they are called theories, until they are met with an enigma, where then it is broken.

taco_emoji 12y ago
Your thinking on this matter is incredibly messy and not guided by rigorous investigation of the facts. > Why would it stick around if it is not needed? WHY WOULDN'T IT??? It's not expensive to carry junk DNA around - it just sits there, not doing anything, not creating proteins, not affecting anything. You're proposing that there's some sort of janitor going through and cleaning up the nonsense and it's just not true. If there is such a mechanism, point to it. Name it. Tell me what it is. Tell me what the evidence of it is. Just link to a wiki page! I think the problem is that you're stuck on thinking about DNA as procedural program code instead of on its own terms, how it actually operates. I'll try to explain a few things, in a last ditch attempt to appeal to your intellect: DNA gets transcribed to mRNA based on START and STOP codons (codons being sequences of three bases). Then the codons in-between START and STOP on the mRNA strand get translated into amino acid chains, also known as proteins. The "ignore protocol", such as it is, is then twofold: 1) if a sequence doesn't occur between START and STOP, it's highly unlikely to ever get transcribed into mRNA, and 2) if an mRNA contains nonsense codons, or its number of base pairs is not divisible by three, then the resulting protein is most likely benign, or at least not harmful enough to prevent the organism from producing offspring and therefore propagating the harmful sequence. (If it is harmful enough to affect reproductive viability, then it doesn't tend to stick around very long.) Not all DNA does anything. Plenty of it is just hanging on for the ride, not harming anyone, and so not selected against by natural selection. > I call it peace at a certain point. I call it giving up the search. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you give up trying to understand.