Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

solowe1 · 03-09-2006, 08:16 AM

An interesting parallel to this discussion can be found in the relatively new theory of "teemosis". http://www.thesecondevolution.com/paper3origins.pdf

The general idea of Teemosis is this:

First---general scientific knowledge of DNA over the last 50 years has led biologists to the understanding that DNA is made up of four chemicals that occur primarily in base pairs, that accumulate in long chains that constitute to some degree a biological alphabet which tell the cells which proteins are to be made in various amounts for a certain period of time for the purpose of producing any number of biological effects.

Second---what is missing. How can the production of proteins code for inherent behavior, (ie a baby sea turtle breaks out of its shell and runs like hell for the water immediately, without any prior learning experience telling it to do so.)(ie second example, while DNA can tell the cells to create liver cells by directing the production of proteins, it cannot by any means that I understand, code for the actual shape of the liver(or the eye, or the hand, or the brain for that matter.)

Teemosis attempts to alleviate these problems by theorizing that a second evolutionary process is at work behind the scenes. This process uses what scientists have dubbed "junk DNA" to construct high order behavior in organisms by utilizing stresses in the environment as a mechanism of change. This is an intersting subject of study, and may well be the next big biological breakthrough in the study of life.

I still have a problem understanding how a chain of chemicals can define specific behaviors and objective body structures. Rupert Sheldrake is a radical scientist with some very unscientific ideas. He is considered a hack by most "real" scientists. One theory of his that has always interested me is his idea of "morphogenetic fields" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field
The idea that the patterns of biological and physical structure, function and behavior are located both within the genes and without(outside) the body in the form of a energy field if you will, that may also house the concious realm. This enery field connects all life in general, but has even stronger connections with life forms of the same kind.

Scientists in general have no love for this idea because it cannot be proven or disproven(yet). I really like the idea because it represents a higher belief; it represents the idea of why we are here.

03-09-2006, 08:16 AM	#64 (permalink)
solowe1 Upright	An interesting parallel to this discussion can be found in the relatively new theory of "teemosis". http://www.thesecondevolution.com/paper3origins.pdf The general idea of Teemosis is this: First---general scientific knowledge of DNA over the last 50 years has led biologists to the understanding that DNA is made up of four chemicals that occur primarily in base pairs, that accumulate in long chains that constitute to some degree a biological alphabet which tell the cells which proteins are to be made in various amounts for a certain period of time for the purpose of producing any number of biological effects. Second---what is missing. How can the production of proteins code for inherent behavior, (ie a baby sea turtle breaks out of its shell and runs like hell for the water immediately, without any prior learning experience telling it to do so.)(ie second example, while DNA can tell the cells to create liver cells by directing the production of proteins, it cannot by any means that I understand, code for the actual shape of the liver(or the eye, or the hand, or the brain for that matter.) Teemosis attempts to alleviate these problems by theorizing that a second evolutionary process is at work behind the scenes. This process uses what scientists have dubbed "junk DNA" to construct high order behavior in organisms by utilizing stresses in the environment as a mechanism of change. This is an intersting subject of study, and may well be the next big biological breakthrough in the study of life. I still have a problem understanding how a chain of chemicals can define specific behaviors and objective body structures. Rupert Sheldrake is a radical scientist with some very unscientific ideas. He is considered a hack by most "real" scientists. One theory of his that has always interested me is his idea of "morphogenetic fields" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphogenetic_field The idea that the patterns of biological and physical structure, function and behavior are located both within the genes and without(outside) the body in the form of a energy field if you will, that may also house the concious realm. This enery field connects all life in general, but has even stronger connections with life forms of the same kind. Scientists in general have no love for this idea because it cannot be proven or disproven(yet). I really like the idea because it represents a higher belief; it represents the idea of why we are here.