No holy Grail?

[aguy2]

Has 'genetically transmitted information' proven not to be the 'holy grail' most had been hoping for; particularly when it comes to behaviors?

 

aguy2

[sunspot]

I am under the belief that the importance of genetics only goes so far and then consciousness takes over from there. The genetics defines all the parts. While consciousness goes beyond the sum of the genetic parts. For example, our bodies are genetically designed to run so fast. But will can use special training techniques to push ourselves beyond these natural limits. One's genetic disposition may imply being thin. But one can eat special diets and train with weighs and become much larger and stronger than our genetic propensity. This may create unnatural stresses due to superseding natural genetic potential. One can be genetically predisposed to stutter, but with special training, normal speech can be mastered, etc., etc.

[aguy2]

I am under the belief that the importance of genetics only goes so far

and does not seem to carry information as to an organisms behaviors. Thus such statements as:

One can be genetically predisposed to stutter

do not seem to be true.

 

Do you agree?

 

aguy2

[abskebabs]

I think that our mapping of the genome hasn't been a holy grail at all and what proteins that our genes code for is only a tiny part of the story, in terms of how our biological mechanisms function in real times. I think personally we have been concentrating far too many resources on the 5% or so of our genome that actually codes for stuff. We have ignored the 95% junk dna which we seem to have more of than any other organism and its purpose. From the information I know now, I firmly believe this is used in hypercommunication between living cells and organisms. I may not be able to argue my point too well about this as I feel I do not know about this area enough, however I will give you a few websites where I gained a lot of information that made me think; hmm there's more to this than I thought. If there's any physicists reading this, I urge you to have a look at this as the way the information is transferred is by something to do with quantum entanglement. Listed below are papers written by a russian research team that looked into this, as well as a few introductory sites.

 

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/Outline.htm

http://www.nanoword.net/library/weekly/aa062500a.htm

 

http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaevI3.htm

http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaevI2.htm

[sunspot]

The basis for cellular integration is connected to the hydrogen proton, especially all the hydrogen protons which participate in hydrogen bonding. Much of the junk genes are there for packing purposes. The packing creates hydrogen bonding configurations that help create hydrogen bonding gradients within the nucleus and cell.

 

As far as genetics and behavior, there are many examples of small lifeforms, like ants, knowing what to do without being taught. It seems reasonable that there is a genetic link at the foundation of behavior. It is also likely that these geness are not segegrated genes (one per behavior), but a complex array of genes.

 

This genetic base is only the foundation for human consciousness. Leaning from internal thought (reason and fantasy) and from sensory data input (real time and cultural learning) blossom consciousness from there, with the DNA base setting up how the data is organized within the brain. This allows all humans to be similar at some base level. While individual programming allows for uniqueness that can go outside genetic propensity.

[aguy2]

It seems reasonable that there is a genetic link at the foundation of behavior.

 

That would sure seem reasonable to me to. The only problem is all the empirical evidence says 'genetically transmitted information' is all about structure, structure, structure.

 

Just because lots of beer comes in cans, doesn't mean there is any causal relationship between cans and beers.

 

aguy2

[zyncod]

Just because lots of beer comes in cans, doesn't mean there is any causal relationship between cans and beers.

 

I would agree if you had said soup, but beer actually has a causal relationship with almost everything.

[aguy2]

That would sure seem reasonable to me to. The only problem is all the empirical evidence says 'genetically transmitted information' is all about structure' date=' structure, structure.

 

Just because lots of soup comes in cans, doesn't mean there is any causal relationship between cans and soups.

[/quote']

 

Is this better?

aguy2