DNA – Information - Evolution.

[socratus]

DNA – Information - Evolution.

Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
‘ The unity of Nature ‘ tried to understand the interaction
between information and DNA. He wrote:
‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
/ page 281 /
DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
/ page 282 /
#
My question.
How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows physics,
mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
#
My question.
Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
DNA information is not static information.
DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
DNA information can evolve.
DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
#
Our body is a multi-cellular organism made up
of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
‘ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
/ The unity of Nature, page 40. /
Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
#
Today scientists think that everything begins from ‘Big Bang’.
And according to ‘big bang’ our Universe exist 13 (+) billion years.
My question :
Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
according to Probability theory?
If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but it will be take time
more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
It means somebody /something must manage this process.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========.

 

[Cliffy]

You have a strange and convoluted thought process. You seem to be trying to equate cellular intelligence with conscious thought and that physical human development has to be controlled or guided by some higher intelligence like a deity (correct me if I'm wrong, but it is hard to follow your train of thought). I find it difficult to imagine why it would be of any significance to an intelligent mind to consider such musings unless a person would be sequestered away from human contact and had nothing better to do than ponder questions of no useful purpose than to entertain a bored mind.

If you really want to entertain your mind, try to factor in the holographic universe theory to your inquiry. If reality is nothing more than a projection of our consciousness, then who really created the universe and is it an ongoing process of your own mind? And if so, are you god? If you are responsible for creation then you are in charge of you own development from zygote to intelligent adult. If reality s just a holographic image projected by you conscious mind then is your physical body anything more than a hologram and if so, is there any such thing as DNA? If all this universe is nothing more than a projection that you are in charge of, then if you don't like anything about it (like war) could you not eliminate it from existence by just changing your mind?

If the universe is just a hologram then science is nothing more than mental masturbation just like religion.

 

[socratus]

1
If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
2
If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
===.

 

[Cliffy]

1
If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
2
If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
===.

Humans created the big bang theory just like they invented gods and religions. What existed before humans created them? Did DNA create physics, chemistry, mathematics and human cell structure or did humans. What were we before we became physical? What is the underlying force behind all physical reality, the basic building block of our reality?

In the beginning was the word. What is a word but a thought process? Could all this have come about by thought processes? Was the big bang nothing more than consciousness becoming self aware? Who was it that became self aware? Was it you? Was it me? Was it the pregnant woman who gave birth to the universe? Or did the child invent itself and thus the DNA that is encoded with the knowledge to develop from a zygote into a fully adult human?

Your focus is far too narrow to see clearly the bigger picture. Perhaps you should seek Soma to expand your vision. The microcosm is a reflection of the macrocosm. If you could see infinity with a microscope and I could see infinity through a telescope we might just find ourselves looking at each other.

 

[socratus]

Humans created the big bang theory just like they invented gods and religions.
What existed before humans created them?
Did DNA create physics, chemistry, mathematics and human cell structure or did humans.
What were we before we became physical?
What is the underlying force behind all physical reality,
the basic building block of our reality?

In the beginning was the word.
What is a word but a thought process?
Could all this have come about by thought processes?
Was the big bang nothing more than consciousness becoming self aware?
Who was it that became self aware?
Was it you?
Was it me?
Was it the pregnant woman who gave birth to the universe?
Or did the child invent itself and thus the DNA
that is encoded with the knowledge to develop from a zygote into a fully adult human?

Your focus is far too narrow to see clearly the bigger picture.
Perhaps you should seek Soma to expand your vision.
The microcosm is a reflection of the macrocosm.
If you could see infinity with a microscope and I could see infinity through a telescope
we might just find ourselves looking at each other.

Nice email: ' as above so below '

 

[The Old Medic]

Your "theory" is totally silly. And that book you cite has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

 

[socratus]

Your "theory" is totally silly.

1.
Our body made up of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
2.
A single human cell contains as much information as
a library with a thousand volumes.
3.
I don’t need to learn biology in order to ask peasant question:

How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
during 9 months if according to the probability theory
it is impossible?
And if in spate of probability theory the child was boren
doesn’t it mean that somebody /something manage this process?
#
I don’t need to be astrophysicist in order to ask simple question:

If according to probability theory to create child from zygote will take
time more than our Universe exist ( 14 billion years ) then:
What or Who was in the beginning: ‘a pregnant woman’ or ‘ big bang’?
==.
I don’t think that this post ‘ is totally silly’

===.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yes it is, because it completely misconstrues the role of probability in evolution. I haven't read von Weizsacker, but if what you've posted accurately represents his views, he's just wrong. It's true that if nature had to assemble a person from 100 trillion cells by random processes it'd never get done, but that's not how it's done. Evolution is the very opposite of a random process.

 

[55Mercury]

indeed. evolution is trial and error times a few million years.

Could the Big Bang be merely the awakening of thought? And thus all thought before that was merely a dream?

 

[Cliffy]

indeed. evolution is trial and error times a few million years.

Could the Big Bang be merely the awakening of thought? And thus all thought before that was merely a dream?

How does thought differ from the dream? Perhaps when the dreamer becomes self aware.

 

[55Mercury]

The difference is between the thought you think, and the thought you think you thought.

:?P

I thought I thaw a puddy-tat.

okay that was thilly.

I used to consider that time will never end until every conceived thought and scenario has come to pass; which is a scary thought in itself, but if it were at all accurate, then it would be plain to all why we should only think good thoughts and banish all bad thought from our hearts and minds. i.e., as was alluded to in another thread, feed the good wolf, starve the bad one out of existence.

 

[Tonington]

1
If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.

No, it does not mean that at all. Ontology is similar for similar organisms, and that pattern of development remains largely the same for large groups of life forms. Neonate chimps and humans look pretty much the same. Early in development even vastly different animals by pylogenetic relationships appear to look the same. The genetic code alters the allometric growth, which ends up defining the morphology of species.

Rocks and minerals grow/form in defined fashions too, without any code. You're conflating terms.

 

[Liberalman]

No, it does not mean that at all. Ontology is similar for similar organisms, and that pattern of development remains largely the same for large groups of life forms. Neonate chimps and humans look pretty much the same. Early in development even vastly different animals by pylogenetic relationships appear to look the same. The genetic code alters the allometric growth, which ends up defining the morphology of species.

Rocks and minerals grow/form in defined fashions too, without any code. You're conflating terms.

About the Big Bang, the bible says God needed more room

 

[socratus]

Yes it is, because it completely misconstrues the role of probability in evolution.
I haven't read von Weizsacker, but if what you've posted accurately represents his views, he's just wrong.
It's true that if nature had to assemble a person from 100 trillion cells by random processes it'd never get done,
but that's not how it's done. Evolution is the very opposite of a random process.

===.
But still, what you propose is wrong in two completely different
respects, both showing a fundamental lack of understanding.
#
First,
that there are a lot of cells in the human body, perhaps 100 trillion,
is irrelevant to the information content since the DNA in all of these
is essentially the same.
So 100 trillion libraries is no different from one library if you
choose to use that very unhelpful metaphor for what DNA constitutes.
/ Richard Norman /
the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.
/ Richard Norman /

Maybe ‘the DNA in all of these is essentially the same.’
But cells come in all shapes and sizes .
Socratus
#
Second,
I already said that probability theory in no way says that the
development of a human child in nine months from a single
fertilized egg is impossible.
Therefore the existence of such a child does not at all mean
somebody/something must be managing it.
/ Richard Norman /

It is your opinion or law that probability theory doesn’t work
in biology ( cells ) and in astrophysics ( big bang ).
Socratus


Actually there is something that does manage it:
the workings out of the machinery of biochemistry and
biophysics and molecular biology and developmental biology.
/ Richard Norman /

Cells make copies of themselves,. . .
Different cells make different copies of themselves,. . .
Cells come in all shapes and sizes . . . .
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( ! ) they change own geometrical form
from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /electrical point of view.
Socratus
==.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You continue to miss the point entirely. "...during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! ) and by chance ( ! ) they change own geometrical form from zygote to a child" is simply wrong, it's not by chance.

 

[socratus]

You continue to miss the point entirely.
"...during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! ) and by chance ( ! )
they change own geometrical form from zygote to a child" is simply wrong,
it's not by chance.

I understand you , it is going by the machinery of
biochemistry and biophysics and molecular biology
and developmental biology.

 

[socratus]

Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?

==.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yes, your body runs on a few watts of electrical power--around 10 or 15 if my memory is correct--and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, consciousness isn't present in any single cell but emerges from the complex interactions of many cells.

 

[socratus]

Yes, your body runs on a few watts of electrical power--around 10 or 15
if my memory is correct--and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,
consciousness isn't present in any single cell
but emerges from the complex interactions of many cells.

===.

Cells make copies of themselves.
Different cells make different copies of themselves.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes.
Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves
and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! )
and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own
geometrical form from zygote to a child.
Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you.
Cells they are you ( !? )
This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view.
#
Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’
But this explanation is not complete.
Cells have an energy / electrical potential.
Cells have an electromagnetic field.
Therefore we need to say:
‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’
===.
Is this formulation correct?
Of course it is correct.
Why?
Because:
Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity)
refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields
produced by living cells, tissues or organisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism

What does it mean?
It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields.
It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances:
matter and electromagnetic fields.
And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book:
QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

The idea of book - the interaction between light
( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange.

He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics
describes Nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment.
So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘
/ page 10. /
#
Once again:
1.
Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.
2.
We cannot understand their interaction and therefore
we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’
===.
Socratus.

 

[L Gilbert]

Everything you are and do is a function of your DNA and brain activity resulting from it. But yes, research is discovering how we tick.

Video: What Darwin Never Knew | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video

A brief overview of Hox genes : Pharyngula

Hox Genes in Development: The Hox Code | Learn Science at Scitable