Laws for evolution of DNA/RNA.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Origmos, Aug 20, 2012.

  1. Origmos Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Rules

    No.1 Rule: Any relevant coding mechanism over a course of time will be subject to the scope of broader laws depending on its influence mechanism.

    No.2 Rule: Anything seemingly random is the product of laws not applicable at its own level or scope.

    No.3 Rule: The amplitude of any applicable law will affect the subject populace to the term of its abeyance once the moment of its relevance is triggered and terminated in terms of successful conquest and taming.

    No.4 Rule: Once a rule is successfully mastered, its higher application will gain relevance in function and operation.

    Please discuss.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    For rule number 4, there are exceptions to this idea. A rule being mastered does not mean a higher application will gain relevance in the function. Unless you can argue to differ, I don't think this applies all the time.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,567
    Welcome to the forum. I can't really discuss this cause I got no idea what you are trying to say.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Origmos Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Rule No. 4 means that once a living being has adapted to master a circumstance, a greater circumstance will apply to it.

    The greater circumstance will unfold on the basis of the very law the living being has adapted to.

    Lets take the example of caution.

    The law of caution has been encoded into the genetic base of all creatures. This is the law why animals look at you suspicious if you approach them or try to interact or maybe even kill them.

    Lets look at the circumstance of this law in our lives as human beings.

    As children we have been taught not to accept candy from strangers.

    As adults we have been taught that there is no free lunch and everything has a price.

    But can we rise above this law. Is it possible that we get an offer that is so good, it belies and renders irrelevant our sense of this caution. It is certainly possible so. We can trust our family not to betray us, we can most probably trust our friends to not betray us as well and this can go to infinity.

    The point is that we must rise above the law and circumstances. Once we have done so, we solve the problem at a higher level i.e ideals, beliefs and so on. The fact is that once our bodies are accustomed to a law, the universe itself will test us at a higher level of the law. If we succeed this test, we evolve to a higher level. If all of do not evolve, we go extinct.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Nonsense.
     
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    Plants aren't very cautious.
     
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,567
    There are many creatures that are not very cautious at all, such as many animals on the Galapagos Islands or Antarctic Penguins. Thats the law of if they ain't hunted they anin't scared.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The rule is, if you want to be understood, you need to be clear. It's unclear what any of the items in your opening post have to do with RNA or DNA. It's also not clear what you have in mind regarding the evolution of polymers. Usually we think of evolution in terms of organisms. And it may only take a particular mutation or aberration of some kind (such as the possible splice/split that most strikingly distinguishes the chromosomes of apes vs humans) in order to achieve the evolutionary success of an organism.

    Lately it seems plausible to speak of the evolution of amino acids, nucleic acids, RNA, proteins and DNA in terms of possible stages of abiogenesis. It's just not clear if this is what you mean here.

    I have no idea what you mean when you say laws have amplitude. This sounds like a wrong answer from a multiple choice quiz in English. The correct choice might be (d) proofs. Something like that. Voltage has amplitude, vectors have magnitude and phase, and laws have proofs, or some such aspect, but not amplitude.

    I also think you want to be careful using the term "law" here where we generally understand the term to refer to the laws of nature.

    "Anything seeming random" (No.2) makes no sense. Consider shot noise, the noise of cosmic radiation, the decay of a particular atom, the fertilization of a particular egg by a particular sperm cell, or the arrival of a particular photon at a particular point in space, and you will find that the word "seeming" trivializes what any person could reasonably understand about real phenomena, as if you mean to reduce something utterly beyond comprehension to some oversimplified idealization that only "seems" random.

    You might want to revisit the language of your opening post and strive for clarity. Phrases like "the term of its abeyance" make no sense at all. And what makes a coding mechanism "relevant"? And how is it a mechanism? You seem to be refering to the mechanisms of genetic code, but what specifically do you mean? Gene expression in DNA comes to mind as a mechanism, and/or the transport mechanism of mRNA in protein synthesis. That in itself would be a fascinating thread topic for folks interested in biology. But your thrust seems different, like you've had a revelation of some sort and have been rendered almost incoherent in your speech.

    It's probably better to try to stick to plain language so folks here don't have to jump through hoops just to try to deduce your meaning.
     
  12. Origmos Registered Member

    Messages:
    3

    The opposite of a law is not confirmation that the law in question i,e, caution doesn't exist. Perhaps evolution decides that these set of creatures in a limited area need to be aggressive t still does not triump the general law of the process of a law translating into the coding of a self replicating being.

    Of course I'm at fault at not making rule no.1 clear, I should meant the coding mechanism of any self replicating. My due apologies.
     
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    The only law that matters is that genes proliferate when they lead to an organism, which, in combination with the environment, proliferate those genes the best. The opposite is also true. You are trying to redefine evolution in a fundamentalist or legalistic way, and that's basically misguided.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,794
    If you claim there is a law that all horses have three legs and I show you a herd of horses with four legs, I think that does indeed undermine the status of your "law".

    Your mistake, I think, is in trying to establish too direct a link between RNA/DNA and the behaviour of organisms. IF genes cause a certain behaviour and IF that behaviour is beneficial to the survival and reproduction of the organism, then those genes are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations. But the causes of behaviour are far more complex than what you seem to be suggesting.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    An example that comes to mind is the peacock giving display. It's purely behavioral, and yet one directly related to reproductive success, then, as you and spidergoat mentioned, something that's going to end up being genetically conferred.

    When we think of behavior in general we normally refer to human behavior which runs the gamut from every kind of strength to every kind of weakness, with very few direct connections to anything genetic. What's been given in the OP doesn't relate to laws at all, it's just speculation. Kind of weird, too, especially the lingo.

    Instinctive behaviors (such as sexual display) would be a more logical way to connect behavior to genetics. A lot of interesting implications come from considering various behaviors in terms of adaptation - such as the nocturnal roosting of birds vs the prowling of felines. But I doubt that's the intent of the OP.
     
  16. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    These rules seems to assume that evolution has a direction. It doesn't. Items which might fall under rules one and two (and maybe three, but as written I can't quite make sense of it), but then 4 is out the window as soon as the environment changes as a previously useful feature (once 'mastered') is no longer useful, and the feature is then lost.
     
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    This is because our species has a uniquely enormous forebrain. It's something like four or five times as large as the midbrain and hindbrain combined. This proportion is more than double that of any other ape, and an order of magnitude greater than most other mammals.

    This results in an unprecedented ability to ignore, modify or override instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. Couple this with the fact that we're a pack-social species in which the individual is programmed to watch and learn from his pack-mates throughout his entire life, rather than just in childhood. Then add to that the fact that we've increased the size of our "virtual pack" to include nearly the entire human race, and invented new communication technologies that make it easy to watch and learn from seven billion other individuals. Our instincts lose the battle with the clever invented and modified behaviors of a planet full of humans.

    It's no wonder that instinctive behaviors don't make up a very large part of our activities.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Humans still practice sexual display, but the details of the behavior are constantly modified down through the generations.
    • Victorian women corseted their chests and wore prosthetic buttocks. Modern American woman accent their chests and corset their buttocks.
    • Throughout history men have cultivated our facial hair, our most visible form of dimorphism--unless we're naked. But when the technology of poison gas was invented in World War I, every soldier had to be ready to slip on a gas mask with a few seconds' warning. Gas masks don't seal over whiskers, so a generation of American and European men were taught to shave. (A cynic would look at the Gillette company's astronomical profits from inventing the disposable-blade safety razor and wonder if their parent company also owned the company that invented poison gas.

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

      ) When these men came home (well some of them came home, quite a few never did), they created the new meme that heroes are clean-shaven. No American President since WWI has worn a beard, and it wasn't until the Counterculture movement of the 1960s--almost two generations later--that facial hair came back into vogue among the citizenry. Yet even today chest hair, another masculine gender-identifier, is not considered sexually attractive by many American women, and some men actually use depilatories to remove it.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    If I talk about people having "animal instincts" it probably is interpreted as the worst of all behaviors. But in fact something as basic as pair bonding and caring for young are clearly instinctive. The capacity to reason, for all its advantages, includes the capacity to be irrational. The "terrible twos" are thought to be a consequence of the emerging personality. And who knows how much the forebrain has hosted terrible nightmares, hallucinations and psychoses.

    The dawn of chemical warfare. Shock and awe. Induced psychoses. But by gum, it put bread on the table. Rationalizing. Damn liberals. Oops, my hindbrain is showing. Here, let me just stuff it back behind my false persona...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Nit pickers and their follicle wars - kind of ironic. You're old enough to remember when Coolsville was goateed. Maybe that mix of unshaven and cleancut has a pattern recognition jamming effect. Considering how facial recognition is interwoven with infant imprinting, communication of emotion, and image recognition in general, the sense of style and preference, along with sexual display factors, probably runs deep. Interrupting the pattern could have a subliminal effect, and serve to unseat something closer to the brain stem, maybe just enough to stir the pot--if you're a Square and haven't worked through the issues of the day. Considering how the McCarthyites and John Birchers ran like Dobermans on alert, the billy goat chin was no doubt a clear threat to the worst ideas ever hosted by a neuronal network.

    Ideally this would be the kind of mental fodder Maynard G Krebs could have been ruminating on when drifting off in the posture of The Thinker, had he not been a clown. It was a bizarre era in which simple humor such as this almost completely masked all the skeletons in the closet. Then came the British Invasion and the Renaissance, springing out of meccas like Monterrey and the Village and spilling over into the Fillmore and then Woodstock.

    Before it was over women were fully de-corseted, their leg and armpit shaving was optional and the sandlots gave way to Frisbee games with them, their Labs, the likenesses of Ulysses S Grant, Aristotle, Marx and Freud in braids and bandanas, half of the revelers with kaleidoscope eyes, and the other half trying to hold a job, stay in school, avoid the draft, avoid the pigs, and be real--be anything but plastic.

    There are so many dimensions to this. Individual survival, from the most essential toolmaking capabilities of the primal intellect, to the instinctual flight-or-fight responses, to empathy, attachment and emotional needs gave way to collective behavior, civilization, and all of the insane consequences of striving to define what's good for the pack.

    Out of all of that jumble of ideas you dredged up in me, I still regard the 60s as a Golden Age (even if its gold standard was calibrated in Acapulco

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    Peace, man.
     

Share This Page