i would say you are just DNA, and your purpose is to reproduce more DNA
sometimes the simple answer is the best! Twins, the DNA has still done its job the mother and father DNA successfully reproduced and as an added bonus created double the DNA. this is a great success for the DNA.
the DNA has no control over the infections, this is the problem the DNA has with the host body. it can not control every aspect but we are the best host that the DNA has found.
the DNA may change with infection but it's purpose is still the same....make more, anyway the change in DNA may be usefull to it! it could be a way to further evolve
Yeah, that makes sense.. But then, what is the point in this "nation" ?
QuoteAh I see.. So, us as a whole, don't care if we are harmed, or changed.. As long as we carry on to make more?
well we care, but the DNA does not.
note: i am making this up as i go along, but it does sound rather good and convincing. i am quite pleased with myself and may have to do more thinking which tends to hurt. maybe the DNA does not want me to know the truth.
Why is it that quoting doesn't work for me? It says "The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:"
quote
Hang on Paul.. a HOST for the Dna? So why does the DNA want to carry on? Again, we are back to square 1. Let's say that we are just ONE Dna? Why does the DNA want to carry on living?
end quote
ok, very quickly and off the top of my head.
what is the purpose of the DNA and why once it has made more does it allow you some extra free will, why does it not want you to live for ever so it can make even more of itself.
think of the DNA as the royal family, what is the purpose of the King, Queen or ruling monarch? to make the next king, going around opening fetes and having nice banquites is all well and good but the main purpose is to carry on the blood line.
this is what the DNA is doing, it knows that "we" as a host are not perfect and succeptable to desease and infection but it is the best it has. once you have done your royal duty and made the next generation of DNA it's job is done.
controversial note here and not my opinions just a quick thought.
If god was DNA and not some high being on anothe plain, this could be why homosexuality is frowned upon! no chance of making more DNA.
note i have gay friends...the above just makes sense if DNA was god
bath time...hoping for a eureka moment!
Hang on Paul.. a HOST for the Dna? So why does the DNA want to carry on? Again, we are back to square 1. Let's say that we are just ONE Dna? Why does the DNA want to carry on living?
Ok then.. Sidetracking away from this.. What is the point in us being here. In us living? We all know that we are to die. One day. Is it really that we were sent down to look after "God's" creation?
Hang on Paul.. a HOST for the Dna? So why does the DNA want to carry on? Again, we are back to square 1. Let's say that we are just ONE Dna? Why does the DNA want to carry on living?Ok then.. Sidetracking away from this.. What is the point in us being here. In us living? We all know that we are to die. One day. Is it really that we were sent down to look after "God's" creation?
Systems depend upon rules that govern their behaviour in order to sustain themselves. The DNA contains the rules that govern the behaviour of the cells (note – when we are talking about multicellular organisms, it is the behaviour of the cells the govern rather than the behaviour of the total organism, although ofcourse the behaviour of the total organism is itself controlled by the cells that compose it). In some ways, the information in the DNA can be seen to be to a cell what a body of law are to a country – the law is a necessity, but not a definition of a country. Furthermore, a law book does not constitute the law itself, it is merely a form of physical storage for the law – so too, the DNA does not define the rules by which cell behaves, it is merely the physical storage in which those rules are stored.
Yes, it is true that the information that is contained within the DNA (the genes) do perpetuate themselves, and in that respect we are the servants of our genes, but a servant is not the same as his master, despite the relationship between them.
The question was, what are 'we', not what governs us – they are different questions.
In the same way that a member (citizen or resident) of a country, is subservient to the laws of that country, and is required to uphold and perpetuate those laws, but nonetheless the individual person still has an identity that is separate from the law, despite being subservient to it.
controversial note here and not my opinions just a quick thought.
If god was DNA and not some high being on anothe plain, this could be why homosexuality is frowned upon! no chance of making more DNA.
note i have gay friends...the above just makes sense if DNA was god
Another_Someone, just one curious question to ask. When does my status from Newbie, change? I made this account a couple of days ago, because I had a science question which needed answering. Fun site though, to share our thoughts [;)]
Newbie * 0
Jr. Member ** 50
Full Member *** 100
Sr. Member **** 250
Hero Member ***** 500
Neilep Level Member ****** 6000
Too Much Free Time Level Member ********** 9000
well no eureka moment, but as with all theories they keep evolving. i now wonder if the DNA picked us as a host not because we were the best it could find but because we were adaptive. It may have seen how we evolved and thought that our own evolution would benefit its own evolution.
As humans got smarter so did the DNA.
If the DNA is god then it would know that repdoduction was impossible through homosexual relations, but because we are adaptive and skilled even homosexuals can noe have children through scientific methods - another good reason for the DNA choosing us as a host.
The DNA needs to keep the "blood lines" going for it's own survival and evolution, it is, or at least thinks it is the ruler and in control...or something, i am still working on it.
Yes, George it is fun.
As for when do you stop being a newbie - once you pst enough stupid questions and answers. look at me full member - lots of stupid q and a's!
no seriously it goes on how many posts you make.
The DNA picking us as a host.. I think that's quite understandable. Just like viruses pick on humans to live on, DNA's do the same?
The DNA picking us as a host.. I think that's quite understandable. Just like viruses pick on humans to live on, DNA's do the same?
To imply that DNA picked us is to imply that we can exist without the DNA.
At a genetic level, I would question whether we are any different from just a collection of viruses. We certainly contain old historic viruses within our genome, and all a virus is is a handful of genes wrapped up in a very simple carrier that inserts those genes into another cell. We too are genes with all sorts of cellular machinery around it, so if one removes that machinery, a gene is just a gene, whether it was inherited from your parents or from a viral infection, or from a viral infection that infected your ancestor.
Ofcourse, the cellular machinery is an important part of the cell - the gene is merely the software of the cell, it still requires the hardware with which to function (software in the absence of the right hardware is meaningless).
Yeah, that's true that to imply that DNA picked us is to imply that we can exist without DNA.
How about, we could once live without genes/DNA but when DNA entered our body (like a virus), our bodies became immuned to them, and kept them. This triggered the evolving of humans, which is what is left of us now?
Yeah, that's true that to imply that DNA picked us is to imply that we can exist without DNA.
How about, we could once live without genes/DNA but when DNA entered our body (like a virus), our bodies became immuned to them, and kept them. This triggered the evolving of humans, which is what is left of us now?
good thinking for a non-chelsea fan, i will have to sort this out...
may be, DNA started out as a little piece of code alone in the sea or where ever. like a parasite it eventually needed a host for it's own evolution. first i entered single cell organisms and as it evolved it progressed to infect everything.
one and all are just hosts to DNA
may be, DNA started out as a little piece of code alone in the sea or where ever. like a parasite it eventually needed a host for it's own evolution. first i entered single cell organisms and as it evolved it progressed to infect everything.
one and all are just hosts to DNA
So where was the DNA created?
The only place where we know DNA is created is within a living cell (not even viruses are capable of manufacturing DNA - they have to use another living organism to manufacture DNA - this is one reason why most biologists would not regard viruses as a living entity).
The trouble is that cells require DNA to instruct them how to build the machinery to create DNA, and DNA requires the cell to get created - very much a chicken and egg situation.
And yes, I really do wonder where this "DNA" started. Maybe humans just had it within them since the beginning. But how?
And yes, I really do wonder where this "DNA" started. Maybe humans just had it within them since the beginning. But how?
The issue of humans is fairly straight forward - humans are very modern, and have inherited DNA from their ape ancestors, who inherited their DNA from whatever mammal preceded the first ape, and back to the first mammal, and then back to the first animal, and then back to the first bacteria.
The real question has to be how the first bacteria came about.
Modern humans are only somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 years old. The first bacteria go back around 4.5 billion years ago.
So where was the DNA created?
at the beginning of time, they were among the early and most primitive of...whats the word...things!, during their evolution they had the need to infect others for protection from the elements and predators.
at some point they lost the ability to reproduce naturally and had to have their host do it for them.
The only place where we know DNA is created is within a living cell (not even viruses are capable of manufacturing DNA - they have to use another living organism to manufacture DNA - this is one reason why most biologists would not regard viruses as a living entity).
The trouble is that cells require DNA to instruct them how to build the machinery to create DNA, and DNA requires the cell to get created - very much a chicken and egg situation.
that is true for "the now" but way back in the "long ago" it was not true. the DNA had already affected evolution and as a survival technique had evolved to such an extent that all living cells needed the DNA.
We have evolved from apes. Why are there still apes and monkeys and chimpanzees and orang-utans still our there today?
We have evolved from apes. Why are there still apes and monkeys and chimpanzees and orang-utans still our there today?
Apes covers a wide family of animals, and there is no reason why there should not be a number of members of the same family living at the same time (after all, there are lots of different types of rodents alive today - nobody questions why more than one type of rodents is alive at once, so why should there be any reason to question why there is more than one type of ape or monkey alive).
A species survives if it can find a niche in the environment where it can live. One would not normally expect two closely related animals sharing the same niche (and even chimpanzees and gorillas are generally not found in the same regions, and where they do exist together with humans, they do tend to become under threat from human incursion, and risk extinction - but where they and humans live in separate environments, there is no competition between them, and they can both survive).
Incidentally, the type of ape that humans originally descended from is no longer alive today - all the apes we see in the world today are modern types.
Yes, but why is the modern type of apes, not as developed as us? Why are they slower in development and evolution than us? What makes them different? And thanks btw, for your information above [:)]
Yes, but why is the modern type of apes, not as developed as us? Why are they slower in development and evolution than us? What makes them different? And thanks btw, for your information above [:)]
What do you mean by 'slower in development'?
Biologically, they develop as fast as we do, but they developed to fit into their niche, not into our niche.
We are increasing finding that other apes (and even other animals) are capable of using tools, and doing many of the things that we thought were uniquely human.
Apes are certainly better at climbing trees, and have more acute senses that humans - so why should they be considered inferior.
What has made humans special is not the human animal, but human society, and the way humans have been able to cooperate in their thousands and even millions. We have combined the intellect of an ape with the social complexity of an insect.
Until very recently, this allowed humans some advantage, but as human society has become ever more competent, the advantage it has given humans has been enormous, and this is why so many other species of animals are now being threatened with extinction under competition from human society.
In past millennia, humans were simply not capable of either competing with chimpanzees effectively within their forest niche, nor were we yet able to change the forest into an environment in which we could compete better. Over recent time, we have started cutting back the forests and turning them into the kind of grassland that humans were originally designed to inhabit, and so are indeed threatening to be the only great ape left on the planet.
Hi George again, and thanks again. Apparently 97% of an ape's genes is the same as humans. Does that 3% make such a difference to the way humans have been able to cooperate?
Hi George again, and thanks again. Apparently 97% of an ape's genes is the same as humans. Does that 3% make such a difference to the way humans have been able to cooperate?
but that 3 percent, if thats what it is, is so huge. people often cite small percentages..we are only so many percent away from a banana etc but forget that the gulf is massive.
Hi George again, and thanks again. Apparently 97% of an ape's genes is the same as humans. Does that 3% make such a difference to the way humans have been able to cooperate?
Hi George again, and thanks again. Apparently 97% of an ape's genes is the same as humans. Does that 3% make such a difference to the way humans have been able to cooperate?
97% of an ape is the same as a human (technically, many biologists would say humans are a species of ape).
It has been said that we share 50% of our genes with a banana.
But, looking at an ape, it has two arms, two legs, a heart, and basically all of the same organs as a human (as do almost all mammals). There are differences in the size of different organs, and differences in their exact shapes, but essentially the underlying design is much the same.
When you get down to a cellular level, again, the underlying cell activity is substantially the same, although the slight differences that do exist can have dramatic differences in outcome.
Although we may have a similar number of genes, they are actually arranged slightly differently, in that humans have one less pair of chromosomes than the other great apes (two of the original chromosomes pairs became fused into one larger chromosome pair, so the same genes might exist, but they are located differently, and so may behave differently).
Even if we look at the functioning of the human brain - most of it is still doing fairly fairly mundane stuff, like learning to walk upright, interpret vision, and smells. Other apes might have a bit more of their brain dedicated to smell, while humans have a little bit more dedicated to producing complex sounds and processing language (even chimps can process language, and have been taught to communicate using complex grammar by use of a keyboard - although this is not to say that they can use language to the same degree as humans - I don't think we yet have the answer to that).
The differences are very small, but those small differences can sometimes have dramatic differences in outcome.
I was wondering exactly what I was? We're made up of billions of cells. Am I just a bunch of cells? Or am I SEAN? Or am I DNA's? Exactly what am I?
I was wondering exactly what I was? We're made up of billions of cells. Am I just a bunch of cells? Or am I SEAN? Or am I DNA's? Exactly what am I?
You are Sean !!
I'm the one with the identity crisis....I think I'm a sheep !!
I was wondering exactly what I was? We're made up of billions of cells. Am I just a bunch of cells? Or am I SEAN? Or am I DNA's? Exactly what am I?
You are Sean !!
I'm the one with the identity crisis....I think I'm a sheep !!
but you are a sheep..................LOL
I was wondering exactly what I was? We're made up of billions of cells. Am I just a bunch of cells? Or am I SEAN? Or am I DNA's? Exactly what am I?
You are Sean !!
I'm the one with the identity crisis....I think I'm a sheep !!
but you are a sheep..................LOL
LOL...yes...yes..I am.......!!..baaaa baaaaaa !!!
Hadrian is great
Since I am made up of trillions of DNA's, what does what work? I feel like only one thing, because I have the ability to move my hands, my neck, to see, to taste etc. I feel like the ruler of the cells and DNA. But is this possible? Seeing I AM the DNA?
Since I am made up of trillions of DNA's, what does what work? I feel like only one thing, because I have the ability to move my hands, my neck, to see, to taste etc. I feel like the ruler of the cells and DNA. But is this possible? Seeing I AM the DNA?
But this is why I am saying that you are not the DNA - you use the DNA to store blueprints of how to build another you - but it is only the blueprint, not the physical reality.
If I build a motor car, that motor car has a blueprint, but I don't drive the blueprint, I drive the motor car. I don't even drive the component parts of the motor car (the seat, or the exhaust pipe, or the spark plug), I drive the totality of it, which requires that it be composed of lots of parts that each perform their own function to create the whole. So too with the human body - you are composed of lots of component parts, but you are the end result of the interelationship between the component parts, but you are not merely one part of you or another, you are all the bits put together.
Yes, I totally understand what you said. But, by saying that, you are saying that the motor car still works without the driver. Does our body therefore, work without the DNA's?
Because from our previous comments, Paul I think suggested that the DNA may have started out as some sort of virus, living in the sea, which needed a revolution and decided to come into our body, in which we have become immuned to it now, and have evolved us.
So does that mean, that we would have been living, even if the Dna hadn't come into our body? Although we wouldn't be living in the same way, like a modern human, we may still be living like an ape, but would we still have lived?
This is just all from assuming that a DNA has come into our bodies as a virus-like form. But I don't think that this is the bestest of all theories so far.
You wish me to summarise all 71 posts [:o] [;D]
Hang on Paul.. a HOST for the Dna? So why does the DNA want to carry on? Again, we are back to square 1. Let's say that we are just ONE Dna? Why does the DNA want to carry on living?once we die all of our body parts i.e. all the nutrients become part of someone or somthing else so as has been mentioned DNA deffinatly wants to carry on its evolution BUT it is not a living organism just like viruses they are nothing without the host cell. but i guess you could cliam that we become a part of so many other people once we die!!
once we die all of our body parts i.e. all the nutrients become part of someone or somthing else so as has been mentioned DNA deffinatly wants to carry on its evolution BUT it is not a living organism just like viruses they are nothing without the host cell. but i guess you could cliam that we become a part of so many other people once we die!!
Was there to be any end to the gradual improvement in the techniques and artifices used by the replicators to ensure their own continuation in the world? There would be plenty of time for their improvement. What weird engines of self-preservation would the millennia bring forth? Four thousand million years on, what was to be the fate of the ancient replicators? They did not die out, for they are the past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind;and their preservation is the ultimate rational for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes,and we are their survival machines.
What is the selfish gene? It is not just one single physical bit of DNA. Just as in the primeval soup, it is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world. If we allow ourselves the licence of talking about genes as if they had conscious aims, always reassuring ourselves that we could translate our sloppy language back into respectable terms if we wanted to, we can ask the question, what is a single selfish gene trying to do? It is trying to get more numerous in the gene pool. Basically it does this by helping to Program the bodies in which it finds itself to survive and to reproduce. But now we are emphasizing that 'it' is a distributed agency, existing in many different individuals at once. The key point of this chapter is that a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this would appear as individual altruism but it would be brought about by gene selfishness. it still seems rather implausible.
Are there any plausible ways in which genes might 'recognize' their copies in other individuals.' ? The answer is yes. It is easy to show that close relatives--kin--have a greater than average chance of sharing genes. It has long been clear that this is why altruism by parents towards their young is so common.
To save the life of a relative who is soon going to die of old age has less of an impact on the gene pool of the future than to save the life of an equally close relative who has the bulk of his life ahead of him.
...individuals can be thought of as life-insurance underwriters. An individual can be expected to invest or risk a certain proportion of his own assets in the life of another individual. He takes into account his relatedness to the other individual, and also whether the individual is a 'good risk' in terms of his life expectancy compared with the insurer's own. Strictly we should say 'reproduction expectancy' rather than 'life expectancy', or to be even more strict, 'general capacity to benefit own genes in the future expectancy'.
Although the parent/child relationship is no closer genetically than the brother/sister relationship, its certainty is greater. It is normally possible to be much more certain who your children are than who your brothers are. And you can be more certain still who you yourself are!
One sometimes hears it said that kin selection is all very well as a theory, but there are few examples of its working in practice. This criticism can only be made by someone who does not understand what kin selection means. The truth is that all examples of child protection and parental care, and all associated bodily organs, milk secreting glands, kangaroo pouches, and so on, are examples of the working in nature of the kin-selection principle. The critics are of course familiar with the widespread existence of parental care, but they fail to understand that parental care is no less an example of kin selection than brother/sister altruism.